[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 12:57 AM, 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.

It does nothing of the sort:

Assume for the moment that I chose to define a white on red 3♠ overcall of the opponent's strong club opening as follows:

1. Natural, single suited with 6+ Spades OR
2. A single suited hand with (7+ ♣, ♦, or ♥) and 0-1 Spades OR
4. Lead directing with 4 Spades (concentrated honors) and a 5+ card side suit

Furthermore, assume that I follow the appropriate rules of disclosure.

I assert that there is nothing in the Laws of Bridge the prevent me from using this method.
Furthermore, I assert that this method is legal at the GCC level in North America.

Back to you Foo

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

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.

There are some very big difference between strong club openings and strong 2♣ openings.

From my perspective, the most significant deals with the level of experience with overcalls. Any successful strong club pair has LOTS of experience with players overcalling their 1♣ opening. Most have fairly decent agreements about their continuations.

In my experience, very few pairs playing standard have a clue what they're playing after the auction 2♣ - (3♠). Even if they discuss system, they haven't bothered to spend much time worrying about it. There are much more important things to focus on.

If there is a significant difference between the two sets of methods AND
this difference doesn't related to the dramatic difference in the minimum strength promised by the two openings, THEN

I suspect that the strong club pairs are more likely to be doing it "right"

[foo]

joshs, on Jun 5 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

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.

Opener:
Axx Axxxx AKJx x

Responder:
x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

1C!-(3S)-X showing 4+H and values. WTP?

Of course I am not advocating that all X's in these auctions are penalty! That would be foolish.
Where I'm advocating penalty X's is by the hand most likely to be flat and strong in auctions where Responder has =denied= being able to show shape/strength and the Opponent's already rate to be too high:

1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;?? when holding

♠AJ62♥AT♦AK43♣K32

If there ever was a hand with convertible values and enough power tricks to know the 3S does not rate to make, this is it.

I'll give another example in a different auction:
1N-pa-pa-balance;
some bidding by Overcaller and Advancer;
X by Responder.
THIS SHOULD ALWAYS BE PENALTY.
Responder knows They have too few HCP and/or shape to rate to make Their contract.

If no X is ever penalty systemically in these sorts of situations, you are going to get robbed blind.

...and jdonn, Fishbein was specifically designed to deal with a frequent psycher (Adam Meredith IIRC). It worked for that purpose.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 5 2006, 05:24 PM, said:

Assume for the moment that I chose to define a white on red 3♠ overcall of the opponent's strong club opening as follows:

1. Natural, single suited with 6+ Spades OR
2. A single suited hand with 7+ ♣, ♦, or ♥ and 0-1 Spades OR
4. Lead directing with 4 Spades (concentrated honors) and a 5+ card side suit

Furthermore, assume that I follow the appropriate rules of disclosure.

I assert that there is nothing in the Laws of Bridge the prevent me from using this method.
Furthermore, I assert that this method is legal at the GCC level in North America.

Back to you Foo

Even if I accept your assertion that this method is GCC legal...

Your stated treatment, if systemic, is unusual enough that the "appropriate rules of disclosure" are going to include a previously <insert SO name here> approved, written defense to be be supplied by you to all opponents before the round begins.

Good luck writing it, and good luck getting it approved.

In ACBL land, rightly or wrongly, I suspect you would have trouble making this explicit treatment GCC legal...

[jdonn]

1♣(strong) 3♠ P P, you hold x KQxx KQJx AKxx. Double would be penalty by agreement. Your bid!

Do you pass and tell partner he was supposed to bid with xxx ATxxx xx xxx?

Or do you make your penalty double and watch partner sit there with xx xx xxxx QJxxx as you take your 3 or 4 tricks?

Or do you pass after all, and rack up the undoubled undertricks as partner has QJTx xxx xxx xxx?

Or do you bid 4♣ and play there opposite xxx JTxx Txxx xx?

You are advocating a method with a duplication of ways to collect a penalty if opener has spade length (responder doubles for takeout and opener passes, or responder passes and opener doubles for penalty) but no ways at all to get a penalty if responder has spade length. I can't wait to hear why that makes sense.

Oh, and the imaginary method Richard stated for 3♠ is GCC legal, with no defense required, your suspicions notwithstanding.

[joshs]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

joshs, on Jun 5 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

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.

Opener:
Axx Axxxx AKJx x

Responder:
x KQxx Qxxx xxxx

1C!-(3S)-X showing 4+H and values. WTP?

Of course I am not advocating that all X's in these auctions are penalty! That would be foolish.
Where I'm advocating penalty X's is by the hand most likely to be flat and strong in auctions where Responder has =denied= being able to show shape/strength and the Opponent's already rate to be too high:

1C!-(3S)-pa-pa;?? when holding

♠AJ62♥AT♦AK43♣K32

If there ever was a hand with convertible values and enough power tricks to know the 3S does not rate to make, this is it.

I'll give another example in a different auction:
1N-pa-pa-balance;
some bidding by Overcaller and Advancer;
X by Responder.
THIS SHOULD ALWAYS BE PENALTY.
Responder knows They have too few HCP and/or shape to rate to make Their contract.

If no X is ever penalty systemically in these sorts of situations, you are going to get robbed blind.

...and jdonn, Fishbein was specifcally designed to deal with a frequent psycher (Adam Meredith IIRC). It worked for that purpose.

Oh so you magically play penalty x's by opener and takeout x's by responder.

Thus when responder has length you do not get the penalty. Those are the 800-1400's. Instead you get +150 against your game.

And when opener has moderate extra strength and shortness he has to pass, and with a moose and shortness:

x AKxx AKQx AKxx

1C-3S-P-P
let me guess, you bid 4S on this and go down at the 5 level when
a. you had 800 in 3S-x
or
b. you can make 4H
or
c you can make 3N
or
d. multiple of these

Are these your methods???

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 01:55 AM, said:

Even if I accept your assertion that this method is GCC legal...

Your stated treatment, if systemic, is unusual enough that the "appropriate rules of disclosure" are going to include a previously <insert SO name here> approved, written defense to be be supplied by you to all opponents before the round begins.

Good luck writing it, and good luck getting it approved.

In ACBL land, rightly or wrongly, I suspect you would have trouble making this explicit treatment GCC legal...

Opinionated ignorance is always so amusing

>Even if I accept your assertion that this method is GCC legal...

Don't take my word for it. The GCC explicitly sanctions

"Defense to Conventional Calls (Except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDs above and #7 under DISALLOWED below"

>Your stated treatment, if systemic, is unusual enough that the "appropriate
>rules of disclosure" are going to include a previously <insert SO name here>
>approved, written defense to be be supplied by you to all opponents before the round >begins.

Interesting theory. Sadly, it bears no relation to reality. While the ACBL requires players to get defenses approved to Midchart methods, this one is completely legal at the GCC level.

Quick word of advice. If you are going to make these sorts of sweeping definitive statements, you really want to avoid simple factual errors.

Being arrogant is one thing.
But being arrogant and so very very wrong is just sad.

[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 5 2006, 06:04 PM, said:

 

1♣(strong) 3♠ P P, you hold x KQxx KQJx AKxx. Double would be penalty by agreement. Your bid!
4S! My ODR is Enormous and I do not have convertible values.

Do you pass and tell partner he was supposed to bid with xxx ATxxx xx xxx?
Nope.

Or do you make your penalty double and watch partner sit there with xx xx xxxx QJxxx as you take your 3 or 4 tricks?
Not in this case. There are hands where either pass or X will occur.

Or do you pass after all, and rack up the undoubled undertricks as partner has QJTx xxx xxx xxx?
Nothing works 100% of the time, and I have never claimed otherwise.

Or do you bid 4♣ and play there opposite xxx JTxx Txxx xx?
You have given me the wrong hand to bid 4C.

You are advocating a method with a duplication of ways to collect a penalty if opener has spade length (responder doubles for takeout and opener passes, or responder passes and opener doubles for penalty) but no ways at all to get a penalty if responder has spade length. I can't wait to hear why that makes sense.
You have misunderstood me. Convertible values by Opener means just that.
Responder's pass puts a serious doubt as to Our ability to make a game. Therefore playing X's by Opener here as pure T/O rates to not work very well.

Oh, and the imaginary method Richard stated for 3♠ is GCC legal, with no defense required, your suspicions notwithstanding.
Sorry, I'll be checking with Blaze and Co before I take your word for it. This 3S bid can show any single suiter as well as any two suited hand with S's.
That is =not= a Standard or even close to Standard suit preempt.

Defending against this thing is a mess because even a T/O X may not be available since Overcaller's suit may not be S's or Overcaller may be two suited w/ Spades.

Also, I defy Richard to demonstrate how Overcaller and Advancer can have a constructive auction to the right spot after said preempt.

...and we haven't even gotten into what trick taking potential or HCP range said preempt promises.

Let's see the defense that gives the opponents a chance to achieve parity as well as some constructive sequences that start with said preempt. =Then= we'll talk about how GCC legal this potential chaos hydra is.

[foo]

Opinionated ignorace is always so amusing.
Insulting insufferable arrogance presented via grammar and spelling errors is not even close to amusing.

Being arrogant is one thing. But being arrogant and so very very wrong is just sad.
Attempting to attack the person rather than the argument does not make you right
either in point of fact or ethically.

Don't take my word for it. The GCC explicitly sanctions
Let's do that, shall we?

**ALLOWED **
**Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed **
So if your pet method is not =expressly= allowed, it is disallowed.
now let's see if we can find it on the GCC.

COMPETITIVE
1. CONVENTIONAL BALANCING CALLS.

2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including free bids) thereto.

3. NOTRUMP OVERCALL for either
a) two-suit takeout showing at least 5-4 distribution and at least one known suit (At the four level or higher there is no requirement to have a known suit.) or
b ) three-suit takeout ( at least three cards in each of the three suits.)

4. a)JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5-4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.
b )SIMPLE OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate a minimum of 10 HCP, at least 5-4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.

5. CUEBID of an opponent's suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid that could be weak (fewer than 10 HCP) directly over an opening bid, must show at least one known suit.

6. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls (except see #9 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),
b ) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls, other than double and 2 must have at least one known suit.
c) opening bids of 2 or higher.

7. Numbers 4 through 8 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS above APPLY TO BOTH PAIRS.

DISALLOWED
1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods.

2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

3. Psychic controls (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)

4. Forcing pass systems.

5. Relay (tell me more) systems.

6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show less than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit.
There is =NO= mention made of a call that can show any single suiter as well being able to contain a two suiter with S's.

I want to double check w/ Mr's Bye & Blaze, but ATM my read is since a bid that can show any unspecified single suiter is not expressly allowed, it is disallowed.
Thus you can play 3S Jump Overcall as
a= showing S's or
b= showing any one known suit or
c= showing at least 5-4 distribution in two known suits.
You can not play 3S as showing an unspecified single suiter; and
you can not play 3S as showing an unspecified single suiter or a two suited hand w/ S's

Quick word of advice. If you are going to make these sorts of sweeping definitive statements, you really want to avoid simple factual errors.
Good advice. Perhaps you should take it. And tone down the arrogance and the attempt at disguising it by accusing others of it as well.

[Free]

Too bad Foo, but I think you're wrong!

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 06:51 AM, said:

6. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls (except see #9 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),
b ) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls, other than double and 2 must have at least one known suit.
c) opening bids of 2 or higher.

DISALLOWED
7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit.

Can you read 6a? Defense to conventional calls is allowed, except 7: after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP.

Basicly, it would be very clear if they statet that "any defense against strong ♣ is allowed", but indirectly they say the same thing. Strong 1♣ is a conventional call, which is no natural NT opening nor an overcall...

[hotShot]

I think Cappelletti is a GCC legal convention.

2♣ shows a one suiter in an unspecified suit and it is allowed even after a natural notrump opening.

So i can seen no GCC problem with an overcall like the one described by Richard.

Additionally you can't see a constructive auction after such an overcall, you should realise that any wide ranged 3♠ is nonforcing or even telling partner to pass. So the lack of a well defined follow up is intentional, as it should not happen.

[Echognome]

Here is the full hand (I forgot a few pips when I wrote it):

Scoring: MP

1♣ - (3♠) - All Pass

---

I chose pass. I don't know what partner would have done if I bid 3NT. Perhaps he would pass, perhaps he would correct to 4♥.

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Jun 5 2006, 11:55 PM, said:

Your stated treatment, if systemic, is unusual enough that the "appropriate rules of disclosure" are going to include a previously <insert SO name here> approved, written defense to be be supplied by you to all opponents before the round begins.

Good luck writing it, and good luck getting it approved.

So you know the system regulations for every SO there is? I'd be impressed, except that the suggested defence is certainly entirely legal in England & Wales without any need for written defences to be provided or approved.

Yesterday I was playing the following defence to a strong club NV:
Pass = any 16+ or 4333 without a 3-card straight flush
x, 1D, 1NT = various 2-suiters, 5/4 or better
1H = natural or an unspecified 3-card straight flush in any suit
1S = natural or any 4-4
2C/2D/2H/2S = either natural WJO or a 3-suiter with shortage in the given suit

I don't think it's a very good method, but it was quite good fun.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

Also, I defy Richard to demonstrate how Overcaller and Advancer can have a constructive auction to the right spot after said preempt.

...and we haven't even gotten into what trick taking potential or HCP range said preempt promises.

Let's see the defense that gives the opponents a chance to achieve parity as well as some constructive sequences that start with said preempt.  =Then= we'll talk about how GCC legal this potential chaos hydra is.

This isn't a method that I play (It isn't a method that I've ever seen played). I pulled the entire preempt out of my butt late afternoon yesterday.

It might be possible to design a reasonable advance schedule to the preempt, but this is really beside the point. I suggested this out as an example of a highly random preempt that is none-the-less completely legal at the GCC level.

The ability to design a workable advance schedule doesn't impact the system regs one bit...

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Jun 6 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

Here is the full hand (I forgot a few pips when I wrote it):

Scoring: MP

1♣ - (3♠) - All Pass

---

I chose pass. I don't know what partner would have done if I bid 3NT. Perhaps he would pass, perhaps he would correct to 4♥.

This hand demonstrates another big problem with a 3NT balance: Partner isn't going to be well positioned to know what to do. If he is sitting on a long running minor, a 4♥ bid could turn +600 into -100. If partner has a balanced hand with something to flesh out the Hearts 4♥ rates to be a much better contract.

[jdonn]

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

1♣(strong) 3♠ P P, you hold x KQxx KQJx AKxx. Double would be penalty by agreement. Your bid!
4S!  My ODR is Enormous and I do not have convertible values.

4♠, with that...I think we are done here. Get real. You are going to go down at the 5 level 90% of the time that partner doesn't have Axxxxx of something. I can no longer even take anything you say here seriously. I don't even believe you, or do you want to answer partner when he was sitting there with a spade stack, or awful hand, or both?

Look at the four examples I gave, all different from each other and all totally normal run of the mill hands. You probably survive the first though you might be too high, you are too high on the second, you are WAY too high on the third, and you are too high on the fourth. Shocking!

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 5 2006, 06:04 PM, said:

 

1♣(strong) 3♠ P P, you hold x KQxx KQJx AKxx. Double would be penalty by agreement. Your bid!
4S! My ODR is Enormous and I do not have convertible values.

I'm speechless

Lets ignore the fact that partner is a passed hand and you've bypassed 4♥...
Worse yet, you've used up an entire level of bidding space

How do you ever hope to control the rest of the auction when 5♣/5♦/5♥ all need to be used as natural bids?

Best case scenerio involves using 4NT as Lebensohl so that a free bid show values. Even so, I suspect that your going to run into a lot of trouble judge strain.

[mikestar]

This one wouldn't have been hard at all in my long standing Precision partnership. Over intervention we played natural positives and X was "card-showing", in principle 5-7. At this level some bad balanced 8s or even 9s might double rather then go to the 4 level and our real minimum would be more like a fair 6 count or a very good 5 count. The pass would therefor be 0 to a fair 5 or a spade stack--on our hand we can rule out the latter, so pass stands out.

Admittedly this method sometimes endplays a minimum opener who can't leave the double in, but also collects a lot of penalties where there is no game or there is no room to find the right game.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2006, 04:16 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 6 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

Here is the full hand (I forgot a few pips when I wrote it):

Scoring: MP

1♣ - (3♠) - All Pass

---

I chose pass.  I don't know what partner would have done if I bid 3NT.  Perhaps he would pass, perhaps he would correct to 4♥.

This hand demonstrates another big problem with a 3NT balance: Partner isn't going to be well positioned to know what to do. If he is sitting on a long running minor, a 4♥ bid could turn +600 into -100. If partner has a balanced hand with something to flesh out the Hearts 4♥ rates to be a much better contract.

I don't think pard sits for 3N with this hand. While its possible pard has a running minor, its more likely pard has some sort of balanced hand.

And even if pard has a string of clubs or diamonds, this is an adequate dummy.

Passing 3N is shooting for a small target.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Jun 6 2006, 07:46 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2006, 04:16 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 6 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

Here is the full hand (I forgot a few pips when I wrote it):

Scoring: MP

1♣ - (3♠) - All Pass

---

I chose pass.  I don't know what partner would have done if I bid 3NT.  Perhaps he would pass, perhaps he would correct to 4♥.

This hand demonstrates another big problem with a 3NT balance: Partner isn't going to be well positioned to know what to do. If he is sitting on a long running minor, a 4♥ bid could turn +600 into -100. If partner has a balanced hand with something to flesh out the Hearts 4♥ rates to be a much better contract.

I don't think pard sits for 3N with this hand. While its possible pard has a running minor, its more likely pard has some sort of balanced hand.

And even if pard has a string of clubs or diamonds, this is an adequate dummy.

Passing 3N is shooting for a small target.

I readily admit, I'm not sure what the best plan is with this hand...
Either path has the potential for ruin