[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

1. You can't describe your methods
2. You and your partner appears to be playing different systems
3. If you provided the (ACBL) TDs with a complete description of your methods, they bounce the opening

1. We can describe the methods. You don't like that they don't have quantity and quality specifications that you are used to, but that does not mean the description is inadequate.
2. We play the same system. 3NT by my partner means the same thing as mine.
3. We provide descriptions when asked, and since the opening is not a convention, hopefully TDs would not bounce a non-conventional opening.

As to bidding on whim, this is quite true, and nothing prevents this. Also my bidding at midnight is somewhat different than my bidding at 11 am, which is different than my 6:30 pm bidding, and my bidding when there is a football game on, and my bidding when I'm typing here while playing, and my bidding when I'm BBQ'ing. However claiming that the GCC does not permit this is just silly.

[hrothgar]

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

2. We play the same system. 3NT by my partner means the same thing as mine.

Tell you what Glen... I'm going to go an invest some time reviewing one of the uglier areas in statistics.

We know that the BRBR database contains 14 examples where your partnership opened 3NT. Furthermore, we know that all 14 of these openings were made by you. 0 of the openings were made by your partner.

Sometime tomorrow I should be able to get Ben to provide me with one last piece of data: (I need to know the number of hands where each member of the partnership had the opportunity to open 3NT but chose some other action - Pass, 4♠, 2NT, whatever)

As soon as I get this, I should be able to set up a hypothesis test:

My Null Hypothesis will be that you and your partner are playing the same system.

I can then work out the odds that you were dealt 14 hands suitable for a 3NT opening while partner was dealt 0.

Any preferenece with respect to the significance level? 95% is pretty standard, but I'm happy to use something different...

This is actually going be rather annoying to test (truncated distributions can really be a bitch to work with). Still, I suspect that the results will be illuminating...

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Feb 26 2007, 11:34 PM, said:

As an aside, out of curiosity, how do you want your partner to judge further action if your 3NT can be examples 10 as well as 11? Or do you have the agreement that she is not allowed to bid over your 3NT opening?

Roland

On a related topic, would it be possible to see the complete hands for the 14 examples? It would be interesting to see what actions partner did/did not take...

[glen]

That would not prove we are not playing the same system, but just not playing the same style, which we do not. In fact our styles are not even close, given our wide difference in experience, knowledge (she's read two bridge books, I have so many bridge books I don't know where to store them) etc. Would you suggest I change my style so it is close to her's, or do you have some magic way of getting her style to emulate mine?

Btw if somebody wants to, feel free to post all the responding hands to 3NT.

On a side note, she has taken to doubling with values and no good bid much more than I would, or even the Italians would. This continues to produce good results for us, even though I don't usually pass the double, to the point she has convinced me, by example, to double more to give partner options.

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 03:41 AM, said:

That would not prove we are not playing the same system, but just not playing the same style, which we do not.  In fact our styles are not even close, given our wide difference in experience, knowledge (she's read two bridge books, I have so many bridge books I don't know where to store them) etc.  Would you suggest I change my style so it is close to her's, or do you have some magic way of getting her style to emulate mine?

I have a VERY simple solution: Change your methods....

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening. Here are three off the top of my head:

1. A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds
2. A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major
3. A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

I'm all for granting very wide discretion with respect to methods. However, this assumes a certainly level of responsibility by the players.
Sadly, I don't think that you're meeting it.

If you're going play weird *****, you need to do it the right way.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds
2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major
3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 03:58 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds
2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major
3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

Fine, then use the bid to show 24-25 HCP and a balanced hand.

I don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap.
You make the rest of us look bad.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

I don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap. 
You make the rest of us look bad.

The rest of you are looking bad in what way? Besides saying WTF, and crap, and weird s*** and the rest of what you have said so far. I really don't think our 3NT non-conventional opening impacts what you can and can not play.

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Feb 27 2007, 04:10 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

I don't care WTF you play, so long as you stop pulling this sort of crap. 
You make the rest of us look bad.

The rest of you are looking bad in what way? Besides saying WTF, and crap, and weird s*** and the rest of what you have said so far.

Glen:

You've been on the forums for long enough to know that there is a very active debate about regulating bidding methods.

Some players (myself included) believe in broad descretion with respect to methods.

Many others believe in fair strict restrictions regarding choice of methods. These players often comment that these restrictions are necessary because they are unable to get accurate or useful information about a given bid or bidding sequence. I can point to any number of past debates where the players using something out of the ordinary have defended themselves by claiming that (for the most part) the people playing weird methods are much better at providing disclosure that the people who "just play bridge".

Accordingly, I get really annoyed when I feel that the folks playing something weird don't live up to their ethical responsibilities.

[DrTodd13]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds
2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major
3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

Respectfully, you're digging a hole Glen. 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.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

Accordingly, I get really annoyed when I feel that the folks playing something weird don't live up to their ethical responsibilities.

Okay so far, but your solution is to change methods, instead of living up to the ethical responsibilities? It would more constructive to show how the ethical responsibilities could be handled in this case.

[fred]

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

[glen]

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?

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Feb 26 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

Quote

1) This is not my wording, but the wording of the Laws. You also cut the bolding off at the point where it becomes most significant, unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning.

How can the most important part be an 'unless'? If they don't have a special partnership understanding, then there is no 'unless'.

Quote

2) His partner has a better understanding of hand types that he might make this call on.

3) It isn't so much the fact that there is an EXPLICIT understanding. There isn't.  But by default, partner has a better idea of the hand types the 3N bid may contain than the opponents can ever hope to, which makes it an IMPLICIT agreement.
.
.
.
6) Why would I ever say standard?  With my regular partners, the response is "5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp".  I really dont understand the point of this question.

If you read Cherdano's answer, do you you understand the point of the question?

Of course it means more than 5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp. That might be your agreement, but with some partners they'd do it with some hands, with others it would be others. It also depends upon what seat partner is, and the vulnerability.

If you give an answer like Cherdano's every time, then absolutely, you have something to complain about on this 3NT opener. But when you give an answer like '5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp', then you're doing what they're doing. There's an implicit understanding, in both cases. Why is it illegal for them to play something without revealing any implicit tendencies (and we're talking tendencies here, not agreements- not one of those hands would surprise me as a 3NT opener) but it's legal for you to do so?

To Cherdano- it's because bid_em_up's level of explaining implicit agreements is standard here. You go above and beyond.

This is absolute nonsense. With my regular partners, that is the EXACT meaning. Nothing more, nothing less. It is also a better description than "can be anything" which is essentially the answer that is being given.

And you still evidently fail to comprehend the part that says "unless an opposing pair can be expected to reasonably comprehend".......how can you comprehend what isn't being adequetely explained????

[bid_em_up]

officeglen, on Feb 26 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

There are a lot of different possible definitions for a 3NT opening.  Here are three off the top of my head:

1.  A hand suitable for a 4 level preempt in either Clubs or Diamonds
2.  A hand suitable for a NAMYATS type opening in either major
3.  A two suited hand with at least 6-5 in the majors

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't.

Oh, but then you claim you and her are playing the same system/methods and yet, her judgement and knowledge is supposed to be good enough to "know" when to open 3N? But she isn't advanced enough to be able to handle any of Richard's suggestions? Yeah, right.

No wonder the bids are all by you, and none by her......

Face it, the fact is you are not playing the same methods, you are just claiming that you are, I don't care how much you try to convince us otherwise. If you were playing the same methods, then she should also be opening the same hands 3N. Since she isnt ......draw your own conclusion.

[glen]

bid_em_up, on Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

yet, her judgement and knowledge is supposed to be good enough to "know" when to open 3N?

I didn't say she knows, at this moment, when and when not to open 3NT (especially since our notes have zero examples or discussion). However over time, by watching my openings, I hope she opens 3NT on a bunch of hands.

bid_em_up, on Feb 26 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

draw your own conclusion

Well my conclusion, without seeing any 3NT bids by the other player, would be they are playing quite different styles. However if they opened 3NT on quite different hands, then they would be playing different methods.

[pbleighton]

This has turned into a very active thread, going in different directions, but:

"Glen points out that the ACBL cannot directly regulate natural opening bids. He's right about that, but it doesn't matter. This bid is not natural. (See the definition of natural NT bids in the GCC). Whether that makes it conventional can be debated"

This is my original question. If a bid isn't natural, mustn't it be conventional, and therefore subject to regulation?

Peter

[glen]

My view is that a bid that is a strong desire to play there, is non-conventional, regardless of attempts by the GCC to define "natural" one way or the other.

Btw I'm willing for the bid to have restrictions on to minimums for the bid, as long as the bid does not become conventional. That is, I would be willing to play that it always shows at least nn points (such as 16 or some such number) as long as it would not become conventional.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Feb 26 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

6) Why would I ever say standard?  With my regular partners, the response is "5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp".  I really dont understand the point of this question.
.
.
.

This is absolute nonsense. With my regular partners, that is the EXACT meaning. Nothing more, nothing less. It is also a better description that "can be anything."

Really?

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♥?

Same question, reverse the vulnerability.

Same questions, but now your partner was dealer.

So, do you bid the same in all four cases?

Me, this one's easy. If partner dealt, we're not vulnerable, and they are, I bid 4♥. In all other cases, I'd wouldn't. And a partner who knows me well enough would know this. That's a tendency.

This is an 'honest' 3NT bid. It's a hand that expects to make 3NT but not 4M or 6NT across a balanced hand with 6 hcp of my choosing. That's what, less than 1% of hands? I know what that sort of hand looks like, I knew before Inquiry posted them. I doubted Office when he told me that he included ALL hands in that set, but I looked and sure enough, they're all there. I apologize for doubting him.

The bid has to be legal. If there is an explanation more descriptive that what he's said, then he should say it. You've looked at the 14 hands. You now know as much about the bid as his partner does. What do you think an accurate description of the bid would be?

[pclayton]

Without the Laws issues being discussed here:

I don't have much of a problem with Glen and his wife having different rules for opening 3N.

I would think that she has more of an obligation for disclosure since the partnership has a track record of Glen opening it on a wide variety of hands and Mrs. A opening it on, well...I guess we don't know what she would have.

On the other hand, if she never opens 3N, then Glen would never have to worry about a disclosure problem.