[jdonn]

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

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

That is =not= a Standard or even close to Standard suit preempt.

So what? Why does that matter?

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

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.

So what? Why does that matter?

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

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

So what? Why does that matter?

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

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

So what? Why does that matter?

[mycroft]

As several people said, but I am going to try to make really clear:

"Allowed:
6. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls (except see #9 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),

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

Is the "primary purpose" of the overcall to destroy the methods - i.e. there is little or no constructive element there? No, it has a very powerful constructive element; it is a spade lead-director, no matter what 3S variant it is.

Having played, and played against, a strong club for years in the ACBL, I have case law on DISALLOWED, 1.

The following defences have been allowed:
Suction through 3S: bid J shows either the next suit up or the other two.
Transfer Wonder bids: bid J shows either the next suit up or a takeout of the next suit up.
Non-Transfer Wonder bids: bid J shows either J or a takeout of J! Which one is it? I wonder, too!
1NT showing 4-4 or better in two non-touching suits - no strength requirements.
2NT showing 5-5 or better in any two suits.

The following defences have been disallowed:
1S automatic: (1C)-1S shows 13 cards. This is done on any hand. There are no other calls, including pass.
1S semi-automatic: (1C)-1S shows any hand except a natural preempt (so any balanced or semi-balanced hand, or any unbalanced hand that doesn't fit weak2 or standard 3- or 4- bid requirements). Pass, double, 1D and 1H do not exist.

So that's the standard that is held for "primarily destroy" over conventional bids like a strong 1C opener. This is also why 1C or 1D "could be short" but NF has been ruled not "conventional" for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 6a). After all, we don't want to stuff all the LOLs (of both genders) who play "majors 5, diamonds 4", do we?

Michael.

[foo]

Richard's suggested wonder weapon vs a strong club is causing a bit of consternation.

The first question being raised is whether it is destructive or not. If so, it is not legal.
To be =not= destructive, it needs to
a= have continuations to find the correct strain and level when 3S rates to not be a place to play. {what are the continuations after 1C!-(3S)-pa or 1C!-(3S)-X or etc. What does Advancer do w/ a S void, etc, etc}
b= show a known suit, in this case S's, a high enough percentage of the time.
{The problem here is that the notion of "a high enough percentage of the time" is not well formalized. Is it 51%? Less? More? Where's the cutoff where a method becomes destructive?}

Curiously enough, "destructive" has some definition, even if loose. OTOH, it seems that "constructive" does not have a definition beyond "it just =is=".

The 2nd issue is a bit more interesting. Traditionally, one can play =anything= non destructive vs a strong artificial and forcing opening.
IOW, my read of the GCC was wrong on this point.
However, if this method is deemed GCC, then this and other methods inspired by it could pretty much destroy Forcing 1C openings so thoroughly that it becomes questionable whether playing a FCS is worth it.
...and that in turn brings up the question of whether the traditional "anything goes" approach to defenses to a Forcing Club should be re-examined.

At this point, some folks I consider far more expert in this area than myself are examining the issue.

Hat's off to Richard for raising an issue that could very well result in a re-interpetation or re-write of some of the Laws. At the least, I suspect some more clear definitions for things is likely to be a consequence.

[foo]

Echognome, on Jun 6 2006, 05:13 AM, 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♥.

Much as I hate it, IMHO Responder has to Neg X w/ their hand and force the partnership to play 4H.

In Terms of playing strength, Responder's hand is ~= a 7 count on this auction due to the stiff S and the 6421 shape.

In addition, the presumably strong defending hand will be on lead and most if not all of the missing controls rate to be on side.

Certainly there will be times I'm wrong and it won't work out as well as it does on this board, but hands with ODR as high as the example responding hand just do not feel right as passes.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 6 2006, 08:27 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.

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.

I have a 4 loser hand w/ 4card support for all the unbids when GOP rates to have 2 cover cards.

5 level safety is not guaranteed (nothing ever is), but it is likely.

IMHO, bidding 4N here instead should show a similarly strong hand (4- losers) w/o H's

So, 1C!-(3S)-pa!-pa;??
X= convertable values.
3n= To Play
4m= Natural
4h= To Play
4s!= hands similar to x.KQxx.KQJx.AKxx
4n!= T/O for the minors.

Before denigrating the structure, I humbly suggest doing the math and/or doing some well designed simulations to see just how well this works.

My _suspicion_ is that the more "loose and wide ranging" the style behind 1C!-(3S) is, the better this works. The more classic and disciplined 1C!-(3S) is, the better T/O X's in both seats rates to work...

[flytoox]

I think pass 3S is too conservative. 3N seems the only choice. It could cause some disaster but i dont think that is my excuse.

[bid_em_up]

mycroft, on Jun 6 2006, 01:38 PM, said:

As several people said, but I am going to try to make really clear:

"Allowed:
6. DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls (except see #9 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),

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

Is the "primary purpose" of the overcall to destroy the methods - i.e. there is little or no constructive element there? No, it has a very powerful constructive element; it is a spade lead-director, no matter what 3S variant it is.

Having played, and played against, a strong club for years in the ACBL, I have case law on DISALLOWED, 1.

The following defences have been allowed:
Suction through 3S: bid J shows either the next suit up or the other two.
Transfer Wonder bids: bid J shows either the next suit up or a takeout of the next suit up.
Non-Transfer Wonder bids: bid J shows either J or a takeout of J! Which one is it? I wonder, too!
1NT showing 4-4 or better in two non-touching suits - no strength requirements.
2NT showing 5-5 or better in any two suits.

The following defences have been disallowed:
1S automatic: (1C)-1S shows 13 cards. This is done on any hand. There are no other calls, including pass.
1S semi-automatic: (1C)-1S shows any hand except a natural preempt (so any balanced or semi-balanced hand, or any unbalanced hand that doesn't fit weak2 or standard 3- or 4- bid requirements). Pass, double, 1D and 1H do not exist.

So that's the standard that is held for "primarily destroy" over conventional bids like a strong 1C opener. This is also why 1C or 1D "could be short" but NF has been ruled not "conventional" for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 6a). After all, we don't want to stuff all the LOLs (of both genders) who play "majors 5, diamonds 4", do we?

Michael.

I find it odd that suction would be "allowed" against a strong club opening, but "disallowed" against a natural 15-17 NT opening. (At least it was the last time I checked.....it may have since changed).

[mycroft]

That is the key - "natural".

Note that Suction used to be GCC legal until about 6 years ago. It got delisted in what many people thought was a silly decision (and so those districts choose to play "GCC+any defence to NT" in their tournaments) at the same time Kaplan Inversion was delisted.

I am not sure the powers that be are all that concerned about people who play "strange" methods - and in the ACBL, strong club is "strange". They are, however, very concerned about the many, vocal, "why should I have to play against all these crazy methods" people who play totally natural systems that include opening their shortest suit at the 1 level with 4432 12-counts, 4C never natural, 2C rebids on two cards after 1H-1NT and the like - and who could very well leave if they are not made comfortable.

Note I do not include many players who play short club, 2/1 without Flannery, or Gerber when obvious in the above statement. Most players relish the ability to play this game with their tweaks, and will allow that ability (within reason) to their opponents. But there are many who don't, and they are vocal, and they are listened to.

Michael.

[mycroft]

...and to foo:

If you are one of those who want more freedom to play "aggressive" or "dominant" systems - as I am (although "dominant", i.e. Forcing pass with a non-1C fert, should I believe be in a class to itself), then you have to allow the opponents the opportunity to play aggressive or dominant defences (and frankly, 1S fert defence to a 1C opening is just as dominant, and just as "in a class", as 1S fert in a FP system).

If that means that Strong Club systems become unfeasible, they can't whine about "we need to be protected against these crapshoot defences" if they also say "we should be allowed to push the opponents when we know it's their hand". Note that Richard, at least, won't complain about crapshoot defences...

There's a reason multi-1C systems like the Swedish and the Polish Clubs have developed. You want to play crapshoot defences against our strong opener? Okay, but you do realize that 60% of the time it's a weak/kamikaze NT, right? Go ahead, turn the partscore battle into a crapshoot. We should gain on that in the long run, eh?

Micahel.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 7 2006, 06:34 AM, said:

Richard's suggested wonder weapon vs a strong club is causing a bit of consternation.

The first question being raised is whether it is destructive or not.  If so, it is not legal.
To be =not= destructive, it needs to
a= have continuations to find the correct strain and level when 3S rates to not be a place to play.  {what are the continuations after 1C!-(3S)-pa or 1C!-(3S)-X or etc.  What does Advancer do w/ a S void, etc, etc}
b= show a known suit, in this case S's, a high enough percentage of the time.
{The problem here is that the notion of "a high enough percentage of the time" is not well formalized.  Is it 51%?  Less?  More?  Where's the cutoff where a method becomes destructive?}

Curiously enough, "destructive" has some definition, even if loose.  OTOH, it seems that "constructive" does not have a definition beyond "it just =is=".

The 2nd issue is a bit more interesting.  Traditionally, one can play =anything= non destructive vs a strong artificial and forcing opening.
IOW, my read of the GCC was wrong on this point.
However, if this method is deemed GCC, then this and other methods inspired by it could pretty much destroy Forcing 1C openings so thoroughly that it becomes questionable whether playing a FCS is worth it.
...and that in turn brings up the question of whether the traditional "anything goes" approach to defenses to a Forcing Club should be re-examined.

At this point, some folks I consider far more expert in this area than myself are examining the issue.

Hat's off to Richard for raising an issue that could very well result in a re-interpetation or re-write of some of the Laws.  At the least, I suspect some more clear definitions for things is likely to be a consequence.

This will probably be my last posting on this thread for a while (I'm disappearing into the wilderness for a couple weeks)

I play a lot of strong club systems. Like most people, I find it extremely annoying when the interfer in "my" auction. However, I am strongly opposed to placing any kind of restrictions on the opponent's defenses to my Strong Club opening.

When push comes to shove, I'm much more concerned with getting accurate information about the opponent's defense methods than I am in limiting their ability to use method XYZ.

If we permit players to use whatever methods they want, there is some hope that we'll actually get accurate disclosure. If, on the other hand, we banned some defense, it won't stop people from playing that method. They will merely start hiding behind concepts like psyches to hide their actual agreements.

[foo]

mycroft, on Jun 7 2006, 05:23 PM, said:

...and to foo:

If you are one of those who want more freedom to play "aggressive" or "dominant" systems - as I am (although "dominant", i.e. Forcing pass with a non-1C fert, should I believe be in a class to itself), then you have to allow the opponents the opportunity to play aggressive or dominant defences (and frankly, 1S fert defence to a 1C opening is just as dominant, and just as "in a class", as 1S fert in a FP system).

If that means that Strong Club systems become unfeasible, they can't whine about "we need to be protected against these crapshoot defences" if they also say "we should be allowed to push the opponents when we know it's their hand".  Note that Richard, at least, won't complain about crapshoot defences...

There's a reason multi-1C systems like the Swedish and the Polish Clubs have developed.  You want to play crapshoot defences against our strong opener?  Okay, but you do realize that 60% of the time it's a weak/kamikaze NT, right?  Go ahead, turn the partscore battle into a crapshoot.  We should gain on that in the long run, eh?

Micahel.

The Problems are that
1= at some point the randomness involved becomes so great as to mean bridge is no longer being played. Bridge is supposed to first and formost be a game of skill. When it systemically gets reduced to an exercise in pure dice rolling it is no longer bridge.
a= this hurts the popularity of the game
b= this hurts people's development as players

2= "Dominant" and "Destructive" methods have other issues besides those just those listed in 1 above. They also very easily lead to ATT =ethical= issues since opportunities for UI and other problems can run rampant.


Like many other things in life, there's a balancing act that needs to successfully carried out that many (on both sides of the argument) don't seem to see or want to acknowledge.

[bid_em_up]

mycroft, on Jun 7 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

That is the key - "natural".

Note that Suction used to be GCC legal until about 6 years ago. It got delisted in what many people thought was a silly decision (and so those districts choose to play "GCC+any defence to NT" in their tournaments) at the same time Kaplan Inversion was delisted.

I'll take your word for it, although I never knew it to be GCC legal. I thought it was blacklisted almost immediately.

[Free]

foo, on Jun 8 2006, 02:40 AM, said:

The Problems are that
1= at some point the randomness involved becomes so great as to mean bridge is no longer being played. Bridge is supposed to first and formost be a game of skill. When it systemically gets reduced to an exercise in pure dice rolling it is no longer bridge.
a= this hurts the popularity of the game
b= this hurts people's development as players

2= "Dominant" and "Destructive" methods have other issues besides those just those listed in 1 above. They also very easily lead to ATT =ethical= issues since opportunities for UI and other problems can run rampant.


Like many other things in life, there's a balancing act that needs to successfully carried out that many (on both sides of the argument) don't seem to see or want to acknowledge.

Problems are that people don't realise what a crappy line 'playing bridge' is! It's not supposed to be a game of skill, it's just a game where the luck-factor has been reduced and where skill can get you higher up, but it's still a game where the best don't always win. I haven't seen monopoly played where you may buy some street but not another one. No, it's a game, and within it's rules (WBF rules here - and local system restrictions) you're allowed to do anything.

In the past, doubles were penalty! Everyone played solid. These days most doubles have become takeout. So everyone is starting to find out that they can do a lot more than passing, and they're testing the boundaries. Playing destructive methods has nothing to do with their thoughts on the game, it's just a result of takeout doubles. If you CAN get away with disrupting opponents' auction by bidding 1♠ every board, WHY shouldn't you do it??? If you let opponents bid 1♠ every board, then where's the problem, your methods or theirs? Imo yours!

Playing several strong ♣ systems myself, I know how annoying interference can be. But if you see how much we gain on our limited openings, and all we have to do is play a strong 1♣ opening and hope we can handle the interference well enough, that's just the price we have to pay. You want it to be a game of skill. Well, if you don't allow destructive methods over a strong 1♣ opening (or whenever actually) you're giving strong ♣ players an advantage where they don't need skill! I don't think you want to win because your system is better thanks to authoroties disallowing lots of methods against your system's weakness...

[han]

Quote

In the past, doubles were penalty! Everyone played solid. These days most doubles have become takeout. So everyone is starting to find out that they can do a lot more than passing, and they're testing the boundaries. Playing destructive methods has nothing to do with their thoughts on the game, it's just a result of takeout doubles.

Neither of us is old enough to tell, but I doubt that this is how it went. I think that it is more likely the other way around: people began to interfere more often so more effective methods for dealing with interference (takeout doubles) were developed. Or perhaps both of these factors evolved mutually: as people gained more knowledge about competitive doubles, they found that they needed to bid more as well as use more effective doubles.


As for the original (difficult) problem, I think that pass is right. The suggestion that double by us should be penalty seems absurd to me.

[mycroft]

bid_em_up, on Jun 7 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

mycroft, on Jun 7 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

Note that Suction used to be GCC legal until about 6 years ago.  It got delisted in what many people thought was a silly decision  (and so those districts choose to play "GCC+any defence to NT" in their tournaments) at the same time Kaplan Inversion was delisted.

I'll take your word for it, although I never knew it to be GCC legal. I thought it was blacklisted almost immediately.

According to the Internet Archive, it seems this change to the GCC kicked in 1 Jan 1998.

The relevant section went from:

6. DEFENSE TO:
        a) conventional calls (except see #9 under
           RESPONSES AND REBIDS above),
        b) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.
        c) opening bids of two clubs or higher.

in the 17 Dec 1997 version of the page at http://web.archive.org/web/19970502203053/...arts/charts.htm

to:

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

at
http://web.archive.org/web/19980417210606/.../charts/GCC.htm
(on the previous page, it states: T16/REV. 1/98 - Form #520226)

No idea when Suction started being played, however I do know I was playing CRaSh over NT in 1995. As a side note, it's interesting to see what the Mid-Chart looked like back then, and how much more "free" it is now.

Michael.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 7 2006, 06:34 AM, said:

However, if this method is deemed GCC, then this and other methods inspired by it could pretty much destroy Forcing 1C openings so thoroughly that it becomes questionable whether playing a FCS is worth it.
...and that in turn brings up the question of whether the traditional "anything goes" approach to defenses to a Forcing Club should be re-examined.

At this point, some folks I consider far more expert in this area than myself are examining the issue.

curious whether any of these luminaries have gotten back to you...

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Jun 17 2006, 01:24 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 7 2006, 06:34 AM, said:

However, if this method is deemed GCC, then this and other methods inspired by it could pretty much destroy Forcing 1C openings so thoroughly that it becomes questionable whether playing a FCS is worth it.
...and that in turn brings up the question of whether the traditional "anything goes" approach to defenses to a Forcing Club should be re-examined.

At this point, some folks I consider far more expert in this area than myself are examining the issue.

curious whether any of these luminaries have gotten back to you...

BUMP....

Still wondering whether the experts had anything to say