[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-10, 01:52, said:

Personally,I've never liked WJO's In my experience they're more of a liability than an asset.
What frequently occurs is that LHO is sitting with the remainder of the suit then the next thing
that happens is "DOUBLE"and then...you can guess the rest (!)

LHO's double is for takeout, but yes, you can still be doubled. It must not be such a disaster or it wouldn't be the most popular treatment.

[PhilG007]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-10, 06:07, said:

LHO's double is for takeout, but yes, you can still be doubled. It must not be such a disaster or it wouldn't be the most popular treatment.

If its an overcall in the true sense of the word i.e. competitive,then RHO must have opened the bidding so unless the opponents are playing negative doubles(in which case it must be alerted)then LHO's double is penalty orientated.

[notproven]

Of course, there's also a matter of ethics. I wouldn't think of psyching or using very aggressive tactics against beginners. It's too disruptive and upsetting. There my partner and I try to limit ourselves to conventions that they play.

BBO "experts" are another matter entirely. I also feel that players in top brackets of tournaments should be able to handle top level treatments (because I never saw a pro take it easy on me).

[PhilG007]

notproven, on 2016-May-10, 06:48, said:

Of course, there's also a matter of ethics. I wouldn't think of 'psyching' or using very aggressive tactics against beginners. It's too disruptive and upsetting. There my partner and I try to limit ourselves to conventions that they play.

BBO "experts" are another matter entirely. I also feel that players in top brackets of tournaments should be able to handle top level treatments (because I never saw a pro take it easy on me).

When I was a beginner,I recall my opponents didn't think twice about 'psyching' or employing
'aggressive tactics' They were concerned with one thing only...to get the best possible
score. Rookie or not,to them,I was the Enemy and they were completely ruthless.
I'm sure everyone here has had a 'baptism of fire' when they were beginners

[Cyberyeti]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-10, 06:26, said:

If its an overcall in the true sense of the word i.e. competitive,then RHO must have opened the bidding so unless the opponents are playing negative doubles(in which case it must be alerted)then LHO's double is penalty orientated.

Depends where you are, penalty doubles need to be alerted in the UK and very few people play them in this situation here

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-May-10, 07:06, said:

Depends where you are, penalty doubles need to be alerted in the UK and very few people play them in this situation here

I cannot say for sure about penalty doubles in the ACBL. But negative doubles are not alertable.

[hrothgar]

johnu, on 2016-May-10, 02:48, said:

If you look at the definitions of natural bid, treatments, and conventions in the GCC and the (especially the bottom of) Alert Charts, they are saying that 4 card weak 2's and 5 card 3-bids are not valid treatments of a natural bid, but are conventions. Conventions are regulated in the convention charts.

Comment the first: The ACBL should not contain regulations related to sanctioning methods

Comment the second: I am looking at what I believe is the ACBL alert chart. I don't believe that you are interpreting it correctly.
Note line 2 under treatments which explicitly states that all bids listed above are natural.

(You may be right about what the ACBL is trying to say, but I am going with what they wrote down and what they wrote down says that I can happily preempt 3C on a three bagger so long as I am not explicitly promising a second second (know or unknown)

Quote

Natural Call: An opening bid of one club is natural if, by agreement, it may be exactly 4-4-3-2
with two clubs, three diamonds, and four cards in each major. Otherwise:
1. An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more
cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit.
2. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if, by agreement, it is balanced. (generally, no
singleton or void and no more than two doubletons)
3. A simple overcall in a suit is natural if, by agreement, it shows four or more cards in the
denomination named.
4. Doubles and Redoubles are natural if, by agreement, partner is requested to pass.
Treatment: A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about
the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not
regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which
require Alerts and/or Announcements. As to length ACBL accepts the following as treatments.
1. All bids listed above as natural.
2. A two-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement,
guarantees five or more cards in the named suit.
3. A three-level suit opening, jump response and jump overcall that, by partnership agreement,
guarantees six or more cards in the named suit.
***All suit bids which guarantee a 2nd suit (known or unknown) are conventional.
Such calls are regulated by the ACBL Convention Charts, and require an Alert***

http://web2.acbl.org.../AlertChart.pdf

[johnu]

hrothgar, on 2016-May-10, 11:36, said:

Comment the first: The ACBL should not contain regulations related to sanctioning methods

Comment the second: I am looking at what I believe is the ACBL alert chart. I don't believe that you are interpreting it correctly.
Note line 2 under treatments which explicitly states that all bids listed above are natural.

(You may be right about what the ACBL is trying to say, but I am going with what they wrote down and what they wrote down says that I can happily preempt 3C on a three bagger so long as I am not explicitly promising a second second (know or unknown)



http://web2.acbl.org.../AlertChart.pdf

I assume you meant to say line 1 under the Treatment section.

This is just another example of the sloppy, poor editing of the convention and alert charts. Some may try to argue otherwise, but it seems crystal clear that the (opening) bids listed above only refers to 1 level bids after you also have read the Treatments section. If the section on Natural Calls was supposed to reference 1, 2, and 3 level bids, there would be no reason for them to have added lines 2 and 3 under the Treatment section. By adding lines 2 and 3, the restrictions on 2 and 3 level suit lengths is in black and white.

Another thing that should convince you that my interpretation is more likely to be correct. By your interpretation, opening 3♣ on a 3 card suit is okay, but you wouldn't be able to open 3♥ or 3♠ on a 3 card suit because you would need a 4 card suit for the majors. It would be bizaare if required suit length on "natural" preempts were different based on the suit opened.

[hrothgar]

johnu, on 2016-May-10, 12:16, said:

Another thing that should convince you that my interpretation is more likely to be correct. By your interpretation, opening 3♣ on a 3 card suit is okay, but you wouldn't be able to open 3♥ or 3♠ on a 3 card suit because you would need a 4 card suit for the majors. It would be bizaare if required suit length on "natural" preempts were different based on the suit opened.

No more bizarre than the regulations that require 4 cards to open 1M at the one level...

[hrothgar]

johnu, on 2016-May-10, 12:16, said:

This is just another example of the sloppy, poor editing of the convention and alert charts. Some may try to argue otherwise, but it seems crystal clear that the (opening) bids listed above only refers to 1 level bids after you also have read the Treatments section. If the section on Natural Calls was supposed to reference 1, 2, and 3 level bids, there would be no reason for them to have added lines 2 and 3 under the Treatment section. By adding lines 2 and 3, the restrictions on 2 and 3 level suit lengths is in black and white.

Another thing that should convince you that my interpretation is more likely to be correct. By your interpretation, opening 3♣ on a 3 card suit is okay, but you wouldn't be able to open 3♥ or 3♠ on a 3 card suit because you would need a 4 card suit for the majors. It would be bizaare if required suit length on "natural" preempts were different based on the suit opened.

If and when the ACBL manages to write their regulations to mean what they say, I will consider following them.
(Personally, I suspect that I will continue to preempt 4 card suits at the three level and claim that individual instances represent a "deviation" or perhaps a "psyche")

If I had any belief that the ACBL actually cared about the spirit of the Laws, I might change my behavior, but I see little chance in that happening

[mikestar13]

Let's be clear. Current law allows RA's such as ACBL to regulate natural bids. Previous editions of the laws did not, hence the concept of "treatments". The ACBL has not revised its documents to reflect the 2008 Laws. Its is clearly withing a RA's authority to outlaw (for example) weak two bids on four card suits--whether it is wise to do so is another question.

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-10, 01:52, said:

Personally,I've never liked WJO's In my experience they're more of a liability than an asset.
What frequently occurs is that LHO is sitting with the remainder of the suit then the next thing
that happens is "DOUBLE"and then...you can guess the rest (!)

Strong jump overcalls have an obvious advantage -- you can get your suit in, as opposed to starting with a double and having the bidding come back to you at an uncomfortably high level. I would deffo play them if I could rely on getting very good hands most of the time.

But like all bridge players, I am a below-average cardholder , so on a frequency basis, the SJO doesn't do it for me. Besides, sometimes you can show a two-suited hand, sometimes they won't bump the bidding too much; I have rarely if ever regretted not having a SJO available.

A WJO has quite a few advantages -- it can get a lead, compete the partscore, find a sacrifice, take away a lot of the opponents' bidding space... Plus it comes up. And, of course, while it can be penalised, it is a little harder than in the old days. Because the opponents have learnt that a takeout double is more useful, not least because it is much more frequent. And if they do stop off to double it for a couple off when they had a slam or a vulnerable game on, you are laughing.

An IJO would seem like a happy medium, and some like to play it vul or unfav, but I find it redundant as there is a large overlap between hands suitable for the bid and hands suitable for a simple overcall.

Anyway you call always just call it quits and play Ghestem

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-12, 02:40, said:

An IJO would seem like a happy medium, and some like to play it vul or unfav, but I find it redundant as there is a large overlap between hands suitable for the bid and hands suitable for a simple overcall.

I think IJO at the 2-level makes some sense. You can get robbed if you act only once with your 14-count, especially if you play forum-style 1-level overcalls that could also be a 6-count. Sometimes you only get one shot. And playing IJO, a simple overcall followed by a t/o doubled tends to be 5431 or thereabouts, which sometimes helps partner when deciding how to respond to your reopening double.

At the 3-level, mainstream simple overcalls are so similar to an IJO that the latter probably are redundant, but you could play SJO then, as Phil King does.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2016-May-12, 03:05, said:

I think IJO at the 2-level makes some sense. You can get robbed if you act only once with your 14-count, especially if you play forum-style 1-level overcalls that could also be a 6-count. Sometimes you only get one shot. And playing IJO, a simple overcall followed by a t/o doubled tends to be 5431 or thereabouts, which sometimes helps partner when deciding how to respond to your reopening double.

At the 3-level, mainstream simple overcalls are so similar to an IJO that the latter probably are redundant, but you could play SJO then, as Phil King does.

You have a point about the 2-level. And the 3-level is still available for a really weak hand. I was thinking of 3level overcalls only, not giving much thought to the 2-level.

[PhilG007]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-12, 02:40, said:

Strong jump overcalls have an obvious advantage -- you can get your suit in, as opposed to starting with a double and having the bidding come back to you at an uncomfortably high level. I would deffo play them if I could rely on getting very good hands most of the time.

But like all bridge players, I am a below-average cardholder , so on a frequency basis, the SJO doesn't do it for me. Besides, sometimes you can show a two-suited hand, sometimes they won't bump the bidding too much; I have rarely if ever regretted not having a SJO available.

A WJO has quite a few advantages -- it can get a lead, compete the partscore, find a sacrifice, take away a lot of the opponents' bidding space... Plus it comes up. And, of course, while it can be penalised, it is a little harder than in the old days. Because the opponents have learnt that a takeout double is more useful, not least because it is much more frequent. And if they do stop off to double it for a couple off when they had a slam or a vulnerable game on, you are laughing.

An IJO would seem like a happy medium, and some like to play it vul or unfav, but I find it redundant as there is a large overlap between hands suitable for the bid and hands suitable for a simple overcall.

Anyway you call always just call it quits and play Ghestem

Let's not forget that when you overcall,it's the same as bidding any suit i.e. you're suggesting it as both a trump suit
and as a possible lead to partner should you become defenders.Overcalling on a crap suit will,in the long run,serve no useful
purpose and do more harm than good,I reckon.

[fromageGB]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 01:52, said:

Let's not forget that when you overcall,it's the same as bidding any suit i.e. you're suggesting it as both a trump suit
and as a possible lead to partner should you become defenders.

This is not true, you know. What you are suggesting depends on partnership agreements. Yes, you are suggesting a WJO as a trump suit, but only if it is passed out. No, you are not necessarily suggesting or inviting partner to raise or compete otherwise, nor are you suggesting it as a lead. It only suggests such things if that is how you wish to play them, and then of course you will have different evaluations of hands as being suitable for a JO.

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2016-May-13, 08:50, said:

This is not true, you know. What you are suggesting depends on partnership agreements. Yes, you are suggesting a WJO as a trump suit, but only if it is passed out. No, you are not necessarily suggesting or inviting partner to raise or compete otherwise, nor are you suggesting it as a lead. It only suggests such things if that is how you wish to play them, and then of course you will have different evaluations of hands as being suitable for a JO.

PhilG was describing normal agreements, where a jump overcall shows a decent suit and not a lot of defense.