[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 5 2006, 09:23 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

That's true if nothing is known about the other 3 hands.  Given the WJO, it is more likely the missing controls are split between the 2 unknown hands, with a slight vig toward the WJO having the SK.
In short, GOP has a decent chance of having the CA or SK+CK.

Richard has already mentioned one reason not to assume GOP is short in S's.

If LHO has something like 17 HCP, the best strategy for LHO is to pass quietly in tempo and then consider Whacking the final NS contract.

You persist in believing that LHO is going to behave in a nice predicatble manner

Based on my experience, LHO could be:

1. Long in Spades
2. Short in Spades (Please reference the "Poll: How Many" thread were some very good posted advocated a white on red 4♥ overcall with a heart void)
3. Weak
4. Strong
5. Something in between

LHO won't behave deterministically: It makes life far too easy on the strong club opener.

I'm not assuming anything other than I can trust GOP.

It =doesn't matter= what LHO has if I can trust GOP to have their bid.

Do preempts and psyches throw randomness into the auction? Of course they do. Will We always be able to recover? Of course not.

However, a disciplined pair can deal with undisciplined and psyche style preemption far more often and far better than this thread seems to be assuming.

Preempts and psyches are not some sort of bridge superweapon. They are random shots that can, and often do, hurt the side making them as much or more than the "non offending side" as long as the opponents are disciplined and playing a sane system.

Sure I've missed slams after this sort of auction. I've also collected 800 or more when the lie of the cards was such that making Game was no where near as likely.
Guess which happens more often? Guess which happens more often =especially= when someone makes an undisciplined psyche?

"LHO won't behave deterministically: It makes life far too easy on the strong club opener."
So does LHO behaving too randomly.

[jdonn]

I did not have the, er, fortitude to read all these posts, but the hand in question is an easy pass. Partner has to act, usually by doubling, with any hand approaching a game force and he should in fact stretch to do so. He has something like 0-6, making pass an obvious favorite. You haven't even got that much extra!

[awm]

This is why David and I play 19-21 1NT openings at vulnerable. Perhaps this is why Meckwell play a strong 2NT (even though they play strong club) as well.

In any case, this is certainly a close decision. I don't think an outright psych by LHO is all that likely. On the other hand there's a good chance he has a "normal" 2♠ preempt and pushed to three. So other tables (even those that opened 1m and not 2NT) are likely not faced by this problem.

Partner should bid with a hand that expects to make game opposite a 16-18 notrump. This is the most common, minimum hand for a 1♣ opening. I think it pays for partner to bid not only with the "obvious game force" 9 hcp hand, but also with 7-8. Partner should also strain to act with singleton heart because of various "fix" hands like this. I agree that this hand is somewhat better than a 16-18 notrump (it's 19, and on the good side for 19) but I still think pass is the percentage action. Yes you miss a game when partner has a maximum (something like 6 hcp with 2 spades is the most likely problem hand, I would double with 6 hcp and 1 spade and try hard to find a call with 7-8 hcp in any case). Then again you also avoid game when partner has a weak hand, and 3NT with 19 hcp opposite 5 and no real fit doesn't usually play well.

Yes, if double was penalty here I would double. But I don't think double's penalty.

[foo]

Word of Warning to those that want to bid =too= randomly here.

Bids that are too far "out to lunch" could be ruled as attempts to purposefully invalidate the board...

...and that is a violation of The Laws.

[Blofeld]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 08:26 AM, said:

Why?? Given that Opener could have as little as 16 HCP flat, what does Responder do with 33(43) or =4333, and no S Stop with 9 HCP?
How about (23)44 and no S stop with 9 HCP?
Most pairs are going to play that 1C-(3S)-X shows ~4 H's...

I'd definitely be doubling on all of those shapes. Why should double here promise 4♥s? Sure, they'd be nice, but we're taking a first call at the top end of the three level.

[jdonn]

Completely agree, double says very little about shape. It just shows the values to game force, which could be a stretch under this much pressure, and any hand that can't bid 3NT or a suit. I have seen Meckwell double here with a hand like xxx xxx K KJxxxx (not pointing out because it is light, just pointing out that shape is not a huge issue.)

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 07:36 PM, said:

Word of Warning to those that want to bid =too= randomly here.

Bids that are too far "out to lunch" could be ruled as attempts to purposefully invalidate the board...

...and that is a violation of The Laws.

This attitude would be laughable if it weren't so common...

The Laws of Bridge require me to accurately describe my agreements to the opponents. The Laws also allow Sponsoring Organizations to regulate certain types of agreements. However, the Laws are quite quiet about "random" bids. I can apply mixed strategies to my hearts content so long as I provide adequate disclosure.

Rules against purposely invalidating a board are designed to stop players from opening 7N on a Yarlborough because they are bored and out of contention. (Alternatively, some people like to pull this sort of crap to punish partner for a bad bid) Any one who applies these types of regulations against a pair that is genuinely attempting to score well should have their license to direct yanked.

Some sponsoring organization have passed regulations that limit players ability to use mixed strategies. The most obvious example of this is the EBU Orange Book which currently explicitly bans random overcalls. (As I understand matters, the new version which goes into effect in August has relaxed this restriction). In a similar fashion, the ACBL currently permits players to use anything they damn well please over the opponent's strong club opening.

[foo]

Come Now, Richard. As an exteme example, even you have to admit that if it goes 1C!-(6N) on a hand that has nothing close to the shape/values for the 6N bid, that it's obviously Not Bridge.

Nor is it properly called "a mixed strategy". Such bids are effectively an attempt to mess the board's score so badly as to invalidate the board.

Such bidding is illegal for good reason.

If the only thing your Pard can tell the opponents about the meanings of your bids is that you have 13 cards, there is A Problem. Both ethically and legally.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 08:12 PM, said:

Come Now, Richard.  As an exteme example, even you have to admit that if it goes 1C!-(6N) on a hand that has nothing close to the shape/values for the 6N bid, that it's obviously Not Bridge.

Nor is it properly called "a mixed strategy".  Such bids are effectively an attempt to mess the board's score so badly as to invalidate the board.

I will happily admit that the there aren't many hands suitable for a 6NT over of a strong club opening, however, I fail to understand the relevance of the example to the discussion at hand. I could go off and state that the Laws dont permit me to pour my beer in RHO's lap, however, it wouldn't advance the conversation.

We were having a specific discussion regarding whether a white on red 3♠ overcall of a strong club opening is a well defined bid. I argued that it isn't. You launched into a discussion about people can't bid "too randomly" and suggested that it was a violation of the Laws.

Forgive me for assuming that there was some linkage between the two topics.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Jun 5 2006, 04:22 PM, said:

Partner has to act, usually by doubling, with any hand approaching a game force and he should in fact stretch to do so. He has something like 0-6, making pass an obvious favorite.

Indeed. This hand is actually very instructive for people starting to play precision, and what you said summarizes the situation quite well..

[joshs]

In my usual methods, this is a pass. Partner would have taken some action with 5 points (and maybe even stretched with just an ace) and a singleton spade or with 7 and a doubleton spade (and even with some nice 6's), hence, except for the rare times that partner has 3 spades and 6-8ish, the best hand he can have is 2 spades and a 6 count. Hence you are not making 3N on power. If partner has a 5 count and a 5 card suit you might be able to make a light 3N if 3S was a classic pre-empt, but if instead the 3 spade bidder has entries, he might be able to afford to give up 2 spade tricks and still win the race to 5 tricks...

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 5 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

I will happily admit that the there aren't many hands suitable for a 6NT over of a strong club opening, however, I fail to understand the relevance of the example to the discussion at hand. I could go off and state that the Laws dont permit me to pour my beer in RHO's lap, however, it wouldn't advance the conversation.

We were having a specific discussion regarding whether a white on red 3♠ overcall of a strong club opening is a well defined bid. I argued that it isn't. You launched into a discussion about people can't bid "too randomly" and suggested that it was a violation of the Laws.

Forgive me for assuming that there was some linkage between the two topics.

The point is you are posting like the 1C!-(3S) is "anything goes" in terms of both shape and strength, and even claiming that it is optimal strategy and proper behavior for it to be so.

That simply is not so.

If the bid comes too close to being random, then you run the risk of both ethical and legal issues. For instance, I can see you having a problem in front of a Commitee if you did this on a =4333 yarborough. Particularly if this is a "manuever" you have done a few times in the past and the opponents are not made aware of that fact.

So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.

[foo]

...I'm reminded of the The Italians psyching a S overall in the World Championships back in the 1950's because the Americans had no way to expose or field the psyche.

If no X is ever penalty, you are painting yourself into a corner.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 11:53 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 5 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

I will happily admit that the there aren't many hands suitable for a 6NT over of a strong club opening, however, I fail to understand the relevance of the example to the discussion at hand.  I could go off and state that the Laws dont permit me to pour my beer in RHO's lap, however, it wouldn't advance the conversation.

We were having a specific discussion regarding whether a white on red 3♠ overcall of a strong club opening is a well defined bid.  I argued that it isn't.  You launched into a discussion about people can't bid "too randomly" and suggested that it was a violation of the Laws.

Forgive me for assuming that there was some linkage between the two topics.

The point is you are posting like the 1C!-(3S) is "anything goes" in terms of both shape and strength, and even claiming that it is optimal strategy and proper behavior for it to be so.

That simply is not so.

If the bid comes too close to being random, then you run the risk of both ethical and legal issues. For instance, I can see you having a problem in front of a Commitee if you did this on a =4333 yarborough. Particularly if this is a "manuever" you have done a few times in the past and the opponents are not made aware of that fact.

So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.

In what way, shape or form did I ever suggest that players don't have an obligation to disclose their methods. (If you take a look at the "Poll: How Many" thread, you'll see that I sharply criticized one of partners on exactly this same ground.)

I understand your desire to change the subject:

There's not a single person who agrees with you that the balancing double is for penalties.

Its clear that there is no basis in the Laws banning random bids.

However, trying to lecture me regarding disclosure standards ain't gonna cut it.

You might get some better traction if you start boviating about spellings errors or hand diagrams with 12 or 14 cards (I'm notorious for both)

[jdonn]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 03:53 PM, said:

So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.

Can you please quote the law which says, or even suggests that?

Here, I'll help

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/index.html

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 11:57 PM, said:

...I'm reminded of the The Italians psyching a S overall in the World Championships back in the 1950's because the Americans had no way to expose or field the psyche.

If no X is ever penalty, you are painting yourself into a corner.

As I recall, it was the American's psyching a 1♠ overcall against the Italians...

[awm]

Well there are rules against:

(1) Methods that are purely destructive. Of course, this is subject to a lot of interpretation. Bidding 7NT on a yarborough for no reason certainly falls into this category. A lot of times "purely destructive" is a judgement call though.

(2) "Random" methods. The concern is not actually about truly random methods, but about the use of terms like "random" and "no agreement" to conceal an agreement. For example, I know in the US it's not allowed to have "no carding agreements" since this is often used as a way to conceal the actual carding agreements from declaring side. Similarly a statement that "we play all two-over-one bids as artificial and game forcing and just pick one to bid arbitrarily" would be self-serving and probably inaccurate, and likely deemed an illegal agreement.

On the other hand, I don't think people are suggesting that 3♠ is a "purely random" bid or that the opponents have a concealed agreement. The idea is more that the opponents agreement is that 3♠ is a natural preempt. However:

(1) People often preempt quite aggressively opposite a strong 1♣ at favorable colors. The requisite "spade length" for a natural 3-level preempt in this situation might be five cards, and is certainly no more than six cards.

(2) People sometimes preempt with good hands, especially on auctions where partner seems unlikely to have many of the remaining values. This is such an auction, so it's quite possible the "preempt" is on a full opener, counting on the strength of opener's hand to avoid missing a game.

(3) The 3♠ bid could be lead directional or an outright psych. This is obviously not without risk (again assuming no secret agreements) but we've seen people suggest psyching on various hands with a long suit to run to, especially at favorable after a strong club opening.

None of the above really constitute an "agreement" much less a hidden agreement. Certainly if advancer routinely passes 3♠ with four-card support there is evidence of something fishy, but nothing like that has been suggested here. Perhaps a full description of 3♠ might be:

"Partner has a hand where he feels that bidding 3♠ is likely to lead to a good result for our side, assuming that I will normally raise with three or more spades and pass otherwise. Most often this is a fairly weak hand with six decent spades, but it is possible that partner would bid a strong five card suit here. Occasionally the 3♠ call may include substantial values, if in partner's judgement his hand and the auction make game for our side unlikely without a fit in spades. On very rare occasions partner may bid 3♠ with a seemingly unsuitable hand, particularly if a slam seems likely for the opposing side, but he does this at his own risk and I am expected to act as though he has the normal weak hand with six decent spades until subsequent bidding makes clear that this is not the case."

I'm not sure how this level of disclosure helps declarer any, and I think most of this would be implied by a decent partnership when they describe 3♠ as a natural preempt.

[foo]

I'm not changing the subject at all. I'm making a point that all of Ethics, Laws, and Logic limit bids ATT.

Using awm's post as a reference, we've gone from "anything goes" to a hand w/ 5-6 S's and enough values that Overcaller expects this to be a good bid for Us if We end up playing it, and we've thrown in the =possibility= of =occasional= =non systemic= psyches.

The bounds on this bid just got a whole lot tighter.
...and that refutes Richard's "1C!-(3S) could show anything" POV.

As for Opener being able to X for penalties, That should be common sense. After all, if
2C-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be for penalty, certainly 1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be as well.

Maybe if people penalty X'd more often, opponents would learn to be more careful about having their bid.

Certainly I expect Richard is going to ram into a barrage of penalty X's if he actually bids the way he seems to be advocating.
...and if he is bidding too far outside the expected norms for his bids w/o =extensive= disclosure he is very likely to have lot's of Recorder forms submitted on him and possibly have commitee action to deal with as well.

[jdonn]

If my opponents played penalty doubles on this auction, then quite contrary to what you say I would bid 3♠ as much as humanly possible on any hand with spade length. They will pay dearly the far greater proportion of the time that opener is short in spades rather than long. It would be completely silly to play this double as penalty. There is a reason Fishbein and anything similar has all but faded into oblivion.

You really have shifted the discussion, whether conciously or not. It somehow went from what 3♠ can show ("So there =is= a limit as to which hands a 3S WJO can show.") to disclosure ("The concern is not actually about truly random methods, but about the use of terms like "random" and "no agreement" to conceal an agreement.") Is your position that 3♠ can show anything as long as the agreement is accurately disclosed? If yes, then we are all in agreement. If no, then you are on your own as far as I can tell and I'm not sure what you are claiming anyway.

EDIT (5:15): My apologies, I saw an AWM post and thought it was a FOO post. I'll leave this as written, but feel free to ignore the direct quotes.

[joshs]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 04:57 PM, said:

I'm not changing the subject at all. I'm making a point that all of Ethics, Laws, and Logic limit bids ATT.

Using awm's post as a reference, we've gone from "anything goes" to a hand w/ 5-6 S's and enough values that Overcaller expects this to be a good bid for Us if We end up playing it, and we've thrown in the =possibility= of =occasional= =non systemic= psyches.

The bounds on this bid just got a whole lot tighter.
...and that refutes Richard's "1C!-(3S) could show anything" POV.

As for Opener being able to X for penalties, That should be common sense. After all, if
2C-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be for penalty, certainly 1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;X can be as well.

Maybe if people penalty X'd more often, opponents would learn to be more careful about having their bid.

Certainly I expect Richard is going to ram into a barrage of penalty X's if he actually bids the way he is claiming.
...and if he is bidding too far outside the expected norms for his bids w/o =extensive= disclosure he is very likely to have lot's of Recorder forms submitted on him and possibly have commitee action to deal with as well.

In one partnership I used to play penalty x's after a 2 level or higher interference over our strong club. I think it was an unmitigated disaster.

The following "hand" came up very frequently

Opener:
Axx Axxxx AKJx x

Responder:
x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

6H is excellent. And its hard to get a better score than +100 playing penalty x's.

On the other hand when one of the hands actually had a penalty x, the other player was usually short and could make a takeout x... Yes if opener has 22 and responder has only 2 you can't get your penalty, but that mesh doesn't occur very often.