[Chamaco]

Hi all,
at a recent tourney I opened 1C and opps overcalled 1NT (they were white vs red) showing 13 cards.

Question 1

Is it legal ? I thought the "13 cards" 1 spade overcall had been banned, and I wonder whether this applies similarly to 1NT overcall


Question 2

Assuming this overcall is allowed, what is your suggested defense ?
What to do with flat 5-7 hands ?
What to do with huge hands by responder ?

I thought of using transfer bids, minimum strength 5-7, unlimited:

X = clubs
2C/D/H/S= transfer (2S = xfer to NT)
2NT and higher = 2 suiters
Penalty oriented hands will pass (if 1NT is passed out, opener is forced to reopen)

Opener accepts the step only if minimum, superaccepts bidding his suit if max

[helene_t]

What do they mean by 13 cards?
That they allways overcall 1NT?
That they might overcall 1NT with any hand (mixed strategy)?
That they overcall 1NT as a catch-all?

Anyway, I think double should be penalty-oriented showing 6+ (semi)-balanced or something like that. This is more effective than a trap pass for two reasons: first, we get to defend 1NT undoubled when that's right. Second, the 1NT-bidders p gets only one chance to run.

This 1NT-overcall sounds like an extremely bad idea (even worse than the 1♠ 13-card overcall) and you should benefit from the situation.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Sep 27 2005, 08:15 AM, said:

What do they mean by 13 cards?
That they allways overcall 1NT?
That they might overcall 1NT with any hand (mixed strategy)?
That they overcall 1NT as a catch-all?

Anyway, double should be penalty-oriented showing 6+ semi-ballanced or something like that. This 1NT-overcall sounds as an extremely bad idea (even worse than the 1♠ 13-card overcall) and you should benefit from the situation.

They are not forced to bid 1NT with any hand, but whenever they do they bid 1NT.
Mixed strategy.

[Free]

I don't understand why this should be banned, as well as why 1♠ is banned Doesn't make much sense imo.

Anyway, after such overcall, his partner will usually not bid again. That's why it might be useful to have a Dbl as semi-positive (read 4-7 or so) and all other responses GF:
Dbl = 4-7HCP, any
2X = 8+HCP, transfer to the next suit, unbal
2NT = 8+HCP, bal
3X = 8+HCP, 3-suiter (specify however you want )

[helene_t]

Müller-de Wijs used to play what Frederick suggests, but when it came up for the first time (actually, this 1NT-overcall showed minors or majors but that's imaterial) Müller on the fly decided to change it so the he could double with any strong hand that wanted to penalize the opps. So he doubled with his 14 HCP and his partner alerted it as 5-7.

[paulg]

"Banned" really needs a jurisdiction qualification as it can vary so much.

The English Bridge Union explicitly bans random overcalls - "9.1.5 You may not have an agreement to make random calls, including overcalls." - and suggests that random overcalls without agreement may be against the proprieties (Law 74).

The ACBL bans them too, but less explicitly - "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods."

The WBF does not appear to ban them over strong artificial openings - "2.4 (e) None of the foregoing restrictions pertain to conventional defences against strong, artificial opening bids ..."

BBO has established that it has no systems policy for the site and leaves this decision to the tournament organiser.

Paul

[DelfinoD]

cardsharp, on Sep 27 2005, 05:12 AM, said:

"The ACBL bans them too, but less explicitly - "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods."

The law is really stupid I think

It almost sounds like: "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to get better score than the opponets"

[Free]

DelfinoD, on Sep 27 2005, 11:48 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Sep 27 2005, 05:12 AM, said:

"The ACBL bans them too, but less explicitly - "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods."

The law is really stupid I think

It almost sounds like: "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to get better score than the opponets"

Why are you allowed to open preemptive at the 3-level or higher? Isn't that destructive to opponent's methods? Never mind, I've already seen enough of the ACBL nonsense regulations...

[hrothgar]

I think that this issue is fairly complex:

Personally, I have no problem with "random" overcall styles so long as the opponents are able to appropriately disclose their methods. More over, I think that banning "random" overcalls is a major mistake. Players continue to make "random" overcalls, but hide behind the pretense of a psyche to conceal what they are doing.

Where I get VERY upset is players who continually overcall 1!♠ which nominally shows a Spade suit holding a 2-3 card suit opposite a partner who mysteriously refuses to raise with 5 card support and a side singleton.

In short: play whatever you damn well please so long as you disclosure appropriately...

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Sep 27 2005, 05:06 PM, said:

Preempts, while "destructive" are hardly random, they are relatively descriptive bids that have constructive merits. The primary purpose is describing your hand while putting pressure on the opponents. Random bids add nothing to the game but randomness. I'm all for outlawing that.

Just to make sure, you're claiming that "Psycho suction" which you earlier championed has some kind of "constructive" merits?

Be real. The expressions "Constructive" and "Destructive" are simply rhetorical labels designed to evoke an emotional response. Its no different than "Pro-Life", the "Healthy Forests Initiative" or "the Death Tax".

If you like a method, you call it Constructive
If you dislike a method, its Destructive

I really wish that people would drop the pretense...

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Sep 27 2005, 05:45 PM, said:

Any bid that describes your hand has constructive merits. A bid showing "any 13 cards" has no such merit. I'm not sure how you can disagree with this.

I guess I don't believe in the concept of "constructive merit"...

Bridge is a game in which people compete to achieve good scores, not to have beautiful auctions based on some subjective external criteria.

The Laws of the game state that we are obliged to provide complete disclosure of our methods. Accordingly, I have the right to expect an accurate description regarding the definitions of different bids.

There is no such right to an unobstructed auction. It would by hypocritical for me to claim that I should be allowed to play strong club or strong pass but ban the opponents the right to compete as they see fit.

[david_c]

Jlall, on Sep 27 2005, 03:56 PM, said:

You are right about the laws of bridge. Those laws also state the sponsoring organizations can add rules such as outlawing "random" overcalls. If things like this were allowed, the game would be destroyed. That is why they are not. Argue the merits of allowing anything and everything all you want, but if you had your way most people would not have fun playing brigde. Most people would quit. The mad scientists and the purists would be all that were left. This may be fine with you, but I'm glad the ACBL/EBU etc are making some effort to preserve the game.

Well, I'm in complete agreement with Hrothgar on this. I personally don't have a problem with system regulations in general (except in major teams competitions), but I really dislike the idea of banning methods solely on the basis of some nebulous definition of "random" or "destructive".

But anyway, it's funny that Justin should mention the EBU here ...

EBU L&EC minutes said:

7.8 Random bids
Mr Stevenson drew the L&E’s attention to the fact that it had been suggested that some clarification of the ban on random calls should be introduced. As Editor of the Orange Book he had found himself unable to devise anything suitable.

Following a discussion in which it was suggested that the ban be abandoned, Mr Stevenson proposed that removal of the ban should be accompanied by a robust regulation on disclosure, under which it would be made clear that:-
- players adopting an agreement to make calls which had no specified meaning would be under an obligation to take great care over disclosure, particularly of negative inferences; and
- such players would be ruled against unless a TD was completely satisfied that they had given full disclosure.
The abandonment of the ban on random calls was agreed on this basis without a vote.

Common sense prevails.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Sep 27 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

You are right about the laws of bridge. Those laws also state the sponsoring organizations can add rules such as outlawing "random" overcalls. If things like this were allowed, the game would be destroyed.

As I noted earlier, Laws banning random overcalls don't prevent "random" overcalls. Laws banning random overcalls prevent players from accurately describing their methods and exacerbate the problem.

Over time, I've grown increasingly skeptical about the efficiency of complex regulatory regimes. Creating complex restrictions without addressing the root causes of the problems simply increases incentives to "game the system".

Case in point: Many people (myself included) believe that the US needs to decrease its consumption of fossil fuels. Accordingly, they have proposed enormous numbers of complex mechanisms to deal with this issue:

1. Legislating fuel economy standards
2. Subsidizing alternative energy sources like ethanol or wind farms

From what I can tell, most of these efforts are badly flawed. Fuel economy standards have created all sorts of distortionary effects (for example, exceptions for "light" trucks lead to the creation of the SUV industry). Subsidies are typically used as mechanisms to give pork to large campaign contributors like ADM. Worse yet, congress isn't particular good at making efficient investment decisions.

Me, I like SIMPLE. If you want to discourage gasoline consumption, then add a $4 a gallon. Rebate some money to deal with redistributive effects.

In a similar vein, if you want to discourage "destructive" bidding, then just adjust the scoring table. Don't try to be "smart" about and add complexity. Complexity is bad...

Just to close the loop, I'll note in passing that the EBU has a Law banning random overcall. There was a recent thread on RGB in which a member of the EBU legal structure requested help DEFINING "random overcall".... Apparantly the regulatory body was so busy passing regulations that they didn't bother to consider the meaning of said regulations.

If you are unwilling or unable to define a term, then you shouldn't use it as the basis of a legal structure.

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Sep 27 2005, 03:26 PM, said:

Me, I like SIMPLE.

LOL, sorry Richard, please do not be pissed off, but looking at the bidding systems you play, I would have thought the other way around !!

Sorry I could not restrain myself

[hrothgar]

Chamaco, on Sep 27 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 27 2005, 03:26 PM, said:

Me, I like SIMPLE.

LOL, sorry Richard, please do not be pissed off, but looking at the bidding systems you play, I would have thought the other way around !!

Sorry I could not restrain myself

MOSCITO is based on the consitent application of a small number of basic principles.

What could be simplier than that?

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Sep 27 2005, 04:11 PM, said:

MOSCITO is based on the consitent application of a small number of basic principles.

What could be simplier than that?

I don't know, but I am weird

If I were you I'd ask it to a beginner

[awm]

If these opponents consistently overcall 1NT always whenever strong 1♣ is opened, there probably isn't an issue. But I find it hard to believe that they do. In particular:

- With a shapely hand and a lot of offensive strength, won't they push the auction higher?
- Will they really bid with a 4333 zero-count vulnerable versus not?

The explanation of "13 cards" seems like something of a cop-out to avoid actually explaining the negative inferences of the bid.

Probably the best way to define "purely destructive" or "randomizing" methods is that they're methods such that your expected score is clearly going to be pretty bad. For example, suppose I open 7NT on every board. Obviously my results are going to be terrible, but this applies a lot of randomness to the field and penalizes the pair unlucky enough to play against me on the one round when the 7NT call actually makes. I don't think any low-level overcall of a strong and artificial opening is likely to make this definition. If I automatically overcalled 3NT over 1♣ (showing "13 cards") that would be another issue entirely. Note that playing psycho-suction you will usually play in a decent fit at a reasonable level, and on those rare hands when you don't, you will be undoubled on a hand where opponents have the balance of power and a good fit -- psycho-suction definitely doesn't qualify for purely destructive. On the other hand, another of Justin's favorites, caddy system where the only opening bids are 3NT (to play) and 3♠ (transfer to 3NT) could well qualify as a randomizing tactic and might be barred from serious competition for this reason.