[ClaceyJ]

During an evening at the pub after a university bridge session I got thinking, and dreamed up a new convention....

Based around the wonderbid defence to a Strong club, this convention is a wonderbid type convention against a natural bidding system such as Acol/SAYC.

It would involve a jump overcall of a one level bid either showing
-A WJO in the suit bid or
-The other two unbid suits with shortage in the bid suit.

This was as far as the thinking got, but I was wondering

1. With the consensus at the pub, is this illegal in all bridge federations- if so, should it be?

2. Probably more importantly, how ludicrous would this convention actually be?

JC

P.S. If anyone decides they like it, I hearby name it the Clacey Wonderbid

[effervesce]

1. Depends on where you live-I believe it'd be illegal in America. In Australia I'm not so sure-probably HUM but in more than a few tournaments it would probably be legit.

2. It's not that crazy. John E. Fout invented an overcall structure whereby double shows a good 15+ hand, and the takeout double is shifted over to a 'takeout' 1NT where 1NT shows 3+ cards in the other 3 suits. A cuebid shows the suit ranked above and below (ie a cuebid 2H over 1H shows spades and diamonds), while a jump (called a Roman jump overcall) eg 1C-2H shows the suit and the suit above it - in this example hearts and spades. A 2NT overcall shows a strong two-suited hand.

[rbforster]

In the US under the general chart you can use pretty much any defense you want to a conventional opening, for example 1♣ or 1♦ that might be only 2+ cards in that suit (including a strong club and its nebulous diamond, but also a polish club, a "prepared" club, etc). You can also use any defense to openings of 2♣ or higher. Over natural openings 1 level openings, you would not be able to play your "psycho-suction" style overcalls.

Edit: I will point out you can play a double as any weird conventional bid you like in the US, including conventional continuations thereafter.

[pclayton]

Fout didnt invent Overcall Structure - even though he did the write-up, he hates it.

These overcalls have nothing to do with OS, they sound more like suction. Not close to being legit in the US.

[dake50]

Amsbury had a 1) 3-suit takeout= XX if X; 2) P if X=WJO; 3) new if X=2-suits: this and unbid. Abject ambiguity to obstruct opponents!

But you are right. These obstructive tactics rate to pay MUCH better over short/ convenient minors, since opponents have an additional variable= strength to sort out!

[FrancesHinden]

ClaceyJ, on May 11 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

During an evening at the pub after a university bridge session

Sounds as if you are English....

I've been toying with a "multi" WJO (1C) - 2D shows a WJO in either major (or even more amusingly (1C) - 2H shows a WJO in either major.

In England this, and your insane overcall, are allowed over an artificial 1C/1D opening (including one that is natural-ish but my be only 2 cards) but not over natural openers.

[Gerben42]

the (1♣) 2♥ overcall showing a WJO in a major is part of the Dutch "HoloBolo" method versus short ♣ when NOT vulnerable. There is a funny story where Polish internationals, faced with this method, bid to 4♠ in a 4-2 fit after a misunderstanding and this turned out to be the top contract!

[kenrexford]

About 13 years ago, I was playing in a midnight swiss with a young player from Washington DC, Mike Kitces. We sat down against a pair who pre-alerted that they played Precision in a way that seemed to mean, "We play Precision, so we are pre-alerting you that you should be afraid of us, because we are obviously very good." So, I pre-alerted back that we we playing the Kitces-Rexford Precision Defense. Kitces cocked his eye as they inquired.

The defense was as follows. With a two-suiter, D.O.N.T. (very popular at the time) at the two-level. With a four-suiter (4333), overcall 1NT. With a one-suiter or a three-suiter, bid the one suit or the short suit at the one-level, double for long/short clubs.

Advancer, in response to a one-level call or double, raised if he disliked the suit but really liked a side suit, jumping if he had say 5-3. With a liking for the bid suit, Advnacer bid as high in a side suit as he could afford in that suit and in the anchor/short suit.

Kitces nodded and we started.

On the first board, the announcer opened 1♣. I overcalled 1♠ with 2344 pattern, doubled, and Kitces raised to 2♠ with his stiff and a side 5-card suit. The opponents played in 3NT, down one, instead of their 10-card spade fit. The director was called, consultations started, our techniques were approved, and board two started.

Board two was a 1♣ opening, second-seat, to my left. Kitces overcalled something weird, of course, and another director call, another good result for us, more consultations, and approval, this time the director being mildly amused and having difficulty restraining that.

The third board was a simple partscore our way.

The fourth featured my RHO again opening 1♣. Again, a weird overcall by me, maybe 1NT. Kitces, after this was doubled, redoubled. This seemed to ask me to bid my four-card suit, but, as it was spades, I elected to bid 2♣, planning to redouble to deny four-card suits up-the-line. Sure, enough, 2♣ was doubled, I redoubled, and Kitces bid 2♦. When this was doubled, I redoubled to deny four diamonds. Kitces now bid 2♠, and I passed the double, down one. Director called (they missed game), consultations, accusations, conflagrations, consternation, and regulations. This ended the match, as we were now way behind.

We compared our four results. We won very comfortably, of course.

I'm not sure if this is legal, if this should be legal, or what the present rulings establish. But, I advise all young players to try this at least once against the "Jeff and Eric play Precision; we play Precision; so we are as good as Jeff and Eric" pairs.

By the way, does anyone notice that this pair usually features the husband making the flamboyant pre-alert?

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on May 11 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

About 13 years ago, I was playing in a midnight swiss with a young player from Washington DC, Mike Kitces. We sat down against a pair who pre-alerted that they played Precision in a way that seemed to mean, "We play Precision, so we are pre-alerting you that you should be afraid of us, because we are obviously very good." So, I pre-alerted back that we we playing the Kitces-Rexford Precision Defense. Kitces cocked his eye as they inquired.

The defense was as follows. With a two-suiter, D.O.N.T. (very popular at the time) at the two-level. With a four-suiter (4333), overcall 1NT. With a one-suiter or a three-suiter, bid the one suit or the short suit at the one-level, double for long/short clubs.

I'm strongly in favor of allowing player's broad discretion with respect to their choice of methods, however, I consider this outside the Pale.

If you can't accurately describe your methods, you don't get to play them.

You don't get to ***** around with your disclosure obligations because you think the opponents have an attitude problem.

Most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to invent a fairly complex artificial defense at the last moment, pretend that you have systemic agreements, and then start improvising. I normally have zero sympathy for Bobby Wolff's whole "Convention Disruption" theory, however, this little story is enough to make me change my mind.

What's truly pathetic is that you almost appear to be proud of your behavior. Most people outgrow this type of ***** once the leave Junior High. Even the ones who don't normally have enough brains not to gloat about this type of crap.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

If you can't accurately describe your methods, you don't get to play them.

I understood the system, except that it wasn't clear after (1♣)-1♠-2♦ if that shows spade support and chooses diamonds if partner is short in spades. Assuming that it does, it seems simple enough to understand and play.

I don't understand why I'd particularly care, when I'm playing Precision. Normal responses over 1 level responses are

P=0-4 or GF with a penalty X hand (ie., we have the suit they named)
X=Semipositive
New Suit=Natural and forcing
NT=GF, balanced (or semi), stopper in bid suit
Cue Bid= GF, balanced (or semi), no stopper in bid suit.

If I just assume all 1 level bids are natural, nothing changes, and we won't have any trouble finding our suit when we have game when they psyched, because that's covered by pass followed by their suit.

I'll take the system he's playing over the pseudo-'fert' crap* where 1♠ says 'I have nothing else to bid' and you need a pen and pad to figure out what it actually shows.

*not to be confused with actual ferts where all 0-8 counts must bid 1♠ over 1♣.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on May 11 2007, 08:42 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 11 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

About 13 years ago, I was playing in a midnight swiss with a young player from Washington DC, Mike Kitces.  We sat down against a pair who pre-alerted that they played Precision in a way that seemed to mean, "We play Precision, so we are pre-alerting you that you should be afraid of us, because we are obviously very good."  So, I pre-alerted back that we we playing the Kitces-Rexford Precision Defense.  Kitces cocked his eye as they inquired.

The defense was as follows.  With a two-suiter, D.O.N.T. (very popular at the time) at the two-level.  With a four-suiter (4333), overcall 1NT.  With a one-suiter or a three-suiter, bid the one suit or the short suit at the one-level, double for long/short clubs.

I'm strongly in favor of allowing player's broad discretion with respect to their choice of methods, however, I consider this outside the Pale.

If you can't accurately describe your methods, you don't get to play them.

You don't get to ***** around with your disclosure obligations because you think the opponents have an attitude problem.

Most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to invent a fairly complex artificial defense at the last moment, pretend that you have systemic agreements, and then start improvising. I normally have zero sympathy for Bobby Wolff's whole "Convention Disruption" theory, however, this little story is enough to make me change my mind.

What's truly pathetic is that you almost appear to be proud of your behavior. Most people outgrow this type of ***** once the leave Junior High. Even the ones who don't normally have enough brains not to gloat about this type of crap.

LOL. You have obviously never played a midnight swiss. You need to start drinking more and cursing less, you'll feel better.

Besides, where did he not accurately describe his methods?

[Gerben42]

I think the main problem is with:

* pretending to have methods when he didn't
* letting in partner on the secret only when he explained opps

[pclayton]

I don't have much of a problem with Ken's defense, especially in a midnight game.

Since it seems to be an amalgamation of different methods that he and his pard were familiar with, I hope that they alerted their bids, as well as their runouts. "No Agreement" wouldn't pass muster.

[mycroft]

I'd figure to get a slightly less well-described explanation on that one:

wonder bids at the 1 level, DONT at the 2 level. Paradox responses.

1NT is the weirdie for me - even I'm not that insane.

It's clear that this pair had a "PH34r my 1C opener" complex, and hadn't hit anyone that didn't. If they can't find their spade game after (1C)-1S (spades or not-spades)-something-2S (to play if you have spades; willing to play at the 3 level in my suit if you have not-spades); something else - pull, then they have a problem - and lack of disclosure isn't it.

The people I don't like are those who have a defence but don't actually play it, like the pair I played against last year who played DONT overcalls of 1C, at all levels, it seemed (at least at 1 and 2, from experience), but the two times they did overcall 1C, the two suits were hearts and hearts, and diamonds and diamonds. Note: the same person overcalled in both cases, and her husband was the explainer in both cases, and it was pretty clear that the overcaller was totally unclear on the concept and too bullied to say anything (like "when the **** did we agree to play this stupid ****? Let's just bid natural, ok?")

Michael.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 11 2007, 10:53 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 11 2007, 08:42 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 11 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

About 13 years ago, I was playing in a midnight swiss with a young player from Washington DC, Mike Kitces.  We sat down against a pair who pre-alerted that they played Precision in a way that seemed to mean, "We play Precision, so we are pre-alerting you that you should be afraid of us, because we are obviously very good."  So, I pre-alerted back that we we playing the Kitces-Rexford Precision Defense.  Kitces cocked his eye as they inquired.

The defense was as follows.  With a two-suiter, D.O.N.T. (very popular at the time) at the two-level.  With a four-suiter (4333), overcall 1NT.  With a one-suiter or a three-suiter, bid the one suit or the short suit at the one-level, double for long/short clubs.

I'm strongly in favor of allowing player's broad discretion with respect to their choice of methods, however, I consider this outside the Pale.

If you can't accurately describe your methods, you don't get to play them.

You don't get to ***** around with your disclosure obligations because you think the opponents have an attitude problem.

Most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to invent a fairly complex artificial defense at the last moment, pretend that you have systemic agreements, and then start improvising. I normally have zero sympathy for Bobby Wolff's whole "Convention Disruption" theory, however, this little story is enough to make me change my mind.

What's truly pathetic is that you almost appear to be proud of your behavior. Most people outgrow this type of ***** once the leave Junior High. Even the ones who don't normally have enough brains not to gloat about this type of crap.

LOL. You have obviously never played a midnight swiss. You need to start drinking more and cursing less, you'll feel better.

Besides, where did he not accurately describe his methods?

My thoughts also.

I'd add a couple more.

First, we were essentially in Junior High. This was 13 years ago.

Second, I often brag about juvenile things from college days, not just bridge stuff from then. Like, how much beer I could drink then without getting a hangover, how many women I pretend that I slept with, and eating gross things.

Third, we did disclose the methods. Completely. With alerts. Always accurate.

Fourth, take a pill. See a shrink. Kick your dog. Whatever you need to do to get rid of that irrational anger.

[han]

I also don't see a problem with the defense that Ken and his partner played. It is clear and I don't think there is a problem with making up a defense on the spot.