[jtfanclub]

Quote

- why should your partner exactly the hand you need ?
If you have such a partner, I would be delighted to play some hands with him on BBO, since my pards usually tend to put down a "normal" dummy... 

If opener is showing 26+ Zars or the like, and I have 12-15 hcp, the most likely case is that we have about the same number of HCP. That's what I mean by equal strength.

Quote

- doubling at the 2 level is as dangerous as a 1NT overcall: it is risky when opps have the balance of power and we have to scramble for a fit; this will occurr in both cases;
At least at the 1-level, though, if we double rather than overcalling 1NT we have a greater chance to stop at the 1 level (safer), whereas if we bid 1NT and we are doubled, there is no coming back

I disagree, to some extent. Doubling 1♠ is as dangerous as a 1NT overcall. There is, after all, no chance for us to escape at the 1 level. If you use a semiforcing pass for escape, you pass out 1NTX with 14-15 hcp and bid with 12-13. So after:

1♠ 1NT X P

Opener has to decide what to do. If he passes, I might pass, and if he opened light we may make it. He can't afford to wait around. On the other hand, after:

1♠ X XX P

Now he can afford to wait- nobody leaves in 1SXX. So the double is more dangerous both in that it gives them more bidding room, and it gives them more information to place the contract when they're considering game.

Quote

So overcalling after an opener assumes much more risks than OPENING weak NT. This may be justified by "stealing" their major fit;
However, this advantage will be compensated negatively by the symmetric disadvantage: when we have a 4-4 major fit and pard is weakish, he will pass your weak NT and you'll lose your major fit as well.

But since I'm balanced, the 4-4 fit is less likely to be useful to us.
Suppose I'm 4=2=4=3 and partner is 4=3=3=3. The 4-4 fit doesn't help us. Now suppose the opponents are 1=4=2=6 and 4=4=4=1. They're losing a lot more than we are by missing out on the major suit fit. That's an extreme example, but the point is that since I'm balanced, the 4-4 major suit fit is less important to find.

Quote

I don't get it, sorry.  If both myself and my pard have a balanced 13 count, one of us will probably double, or balance with 1NT.

If the bidding goes 1♠ P 2♠ P P, you aren't balancing with 1NT. It's very difficult to know whether to bid or not, especially if you have length and strength in spades. If you had bid 1NT, you can trust partner to know what to do.

Quote

Sure, that's why I play Raptor :-)

Oh, I'm sure Raptor and takeout 1NT (with power doubles) are superior. They just take a completely different mindset, and I'm not ready for them yet. Given that one is going to play 1NT as a balanced hand with a 3-5 point range, 12-15 seems to work as a good compromise between being useful and not being dangerous.

Frankly, when it comes to systems, I find that personal biases override considered opinions. However, I always enjoy a good, well thought out argument (in contrast to a "this sucks" post). I enjoyed your reply, and it did make me think.

But not enough to get rid of the 12-15 range, at least not until I'm ready to make the bid artificial.

[pclayton]

There is always a tendency in bridge to allow ego to seep into our decison making. Maybe we've had a few good results with a system thats 'different'. Maybe we just want to be cool by playing something that we feel is avant-garde, or progressive or whatever. Bias becomes our measuring stick, not fact. The posters that don't like the concept have their own biases; fair enough. Both sides will present information that supports their position, so the discussion becomes more subjective than objective. Personalities become infused, and before you know it - a flame war erupts.

I've played certain systems that I thought were pretty slick, and many players better than I would ask - why are you playing this business? Some things I've retained like overcall structure and Keri; other things I've dropped, like BART.

So, lets stick to the issues here.

1. On equal strength hands, which is the most likely case, the first side to bid 1NT is often the winner. It's not uncommon for both sides to be able to make 1NT, and that be the limit of the hand. This is especially true if I have length and strength in their suit.

I would agree with this assertion if neither side has a fit, especially at MP's NV. -50 = -90 for the same side taking 7 tricks at NT. Vulnerable its the opposite: -90 = -100. The idea of opening a mini or a 12-14 NT is that they start the bidding at the 2 level, without any idea of the strength that their partner holds. A 12-15 NT overcall does not accomplish this, since your RHO has gotten first crack at the auction.

When we do have a fit with partner, i would argue that the 12-15 1N overcall makes it more difficult to find that fit. We are in a 'scrambling mode', the 1N overcaller only shows 'points', it does not promise a certain tolerance for any suit, except maybe a doubleton.

2. Because 12-15 tends to be 'equal strength', which means that should we run we may very well make it. Even if my partner has few points but a long suit, we may make it. Doubling at the two level is dangerous for a number of reasons.

Doubling 2 of a minor is not dangerous at all to the defending side, but can be an absolute disaster playing the hand. If your partner has a long suit you might have a playable spot. But remember the basics of competitive bidding - if the have a fit, we have a fit. If they don't have a fit, we don't have a fit either. The original example you gave had QTxx in RHO's suit. This is a huge red flag for getting involved in the auction; since our having a fit is greatly diminished; as we have a stack in one of the opponents announced strains.

3. I find that it has good pre-emptive value over 1 of a minor (because outside of figeting responder has no way to show exactly 4 of one major but not the other). Over 1 of a major, they may also have no way of finding their 4-4 fit in the other major.

Many pairs have methods over 1N overcalls to ferret out their 4-4 major fits. One of the obvious is a 'raise' of the minor as sort of a negative double. Others play a version of capp or suction or DONT. Sure its not as easy as finding the fit as if they had a free run at the one level. But your methods make it difficult to find YOUR fit as well. You can't say in one tone that it hinders the opponents, but it doesn't hinder our ability to find our fit. If they double, you probably have a nice run-out to get to your 4-4 fit. But what if they DONT double? There you are, out on a limb going for -200 or -300 vul against air. Naturally a strong 1N overcall has this same advantage of preempting the one level, but with built in protection of additional strength.

4. When you start playing against opponents who open with unbalanced 8 counts, you start finding ways to bid constructively. When my partner has a constructive hand, I've made it much easier to bid. More and more people are opening at the 1 level with those unbalanced 8s. If you like tossing in your hand and giving them a top when you and your partner each have a balanced 13 count, be my guest.

Matthew - I think you need to make a decision on whether or not you intend this call to be constructive or destructive. If the intent is constructive, there are better ways to find a fit, and frankly, with more appropriate hands than a flat 12-15. If you want to defend against unbalanced 8 counts; overcall structure is a lot better method, because it punishes the opponents when we have a balance of power and not a fit and it allows us to jam the auction when we do have a fit with less than the balance of power.

When partner has a balanced 13 count; he is expected to reopen. OTOH getting involved with a balanced 13 count in the direct chair is problematic. Furthermore, commiting your side to 1N or 2 of suit with a balanced 13 opposite an unknown quantity is a questionable approach.

5. 15-18 NTs are more dangerous than 12-15. For one thing, you've told them they don't have game, so they aren't going to end up trying to figure out if -300/-500 is a top for them or not: you've told them that it is. Often running to an 8 card fit down 2 is a good board with 12-15, it isn't with 15-17. And 15-17 isn't anywhere near as safe as many people seem to think: 17 across 1 is a lousy 1NT, 12 across 6 isn't. The truth is, penalty X's come up a lot less often than people think over 12-15 1NT (or even 10-13NT), and they don't work as well as people think.

I'm losing you here. How can entering the auction with a stronger hand be more 'dangerous' than a weaker hand? You seem to be retreating back to the 'destructive' argument here when you say that "you've told them they don't have game, so they aren't going to end up trying to figure out if -300/-500 is a top for them or not". You seem to be under a mistaken assumption that the stronger we are, the weaker partner has to be. Certainly the stronger you are, the more potential the combined assets rate to be. I'm guessing the reason that the 12-15 NT doesn't get punished as often as you might think is that people are unfamiliar with the approach. Take that method to my club in Irvine, and it will get the treatment it deserves.

6. X works just fine with 15-18 balanced in the usual systems, because partner will jump with a good 8+. You aren't going to miss many games by doubling and then passing partner's nonjump bid.

About the only thing I substantively agree with you on.

Like it or not, this system gives up equity. As Chamaco says, you offer the opponents a fielder's choice; they get the opportunity to double you in 1N or the 2 level when they have the balance of power without a sizable fit; and when they end up playing the hand, they will have a good idea about where the location of the missing cards are. You are competing against pairs that will normally be passing these hands, and balancing after the opponents find their fit, if one even exists, which is negligible. You might win on a few random boards, even against good opponents, especially in a board-a-match situation, where you early action makes it easier for partner to compete against preemption from your LHO. But overall, I don't think its a sound approach.

As far as getting posts like this when you suggest a method, well , sorry. We try to be objectivist here, and I for one won't always say what you want to hear. I only offer these ideas to help others, with the contract that my ideas will be objectively listened to and feedback granted.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Nov 2 2004, 08:15 PM, said:

How did I end up arguing this?  That does seem the norm here, though...you ask a question of "what do you do with this system" and the answer is "your system sucks", usually from people who've never actually tried it, played against it much, or studied it. 

~snip~

I don't even know why I'm bothering.  People who've never seen it played are going to go with the usual condescending crap.  Some won't even bother to read this.  I don't claim to be an expert (though the person teaching me it is), and I don't feel a real need to defend it.  You like it, fine.  You don't like it, even better.  After all, maybe someday I'll have to play against you.

you make a couple of assumptions here... how do you know the objections were made by people who have never tried it, much less seen it played?

the best point made, imo, was the one about the motive for playing a weak nt... it has great preemptive value... if you accept that as true, you have to also accept that a large part of this advantage disappears once the opponents have exchanged information

robson/segal wrote a whole book with this in mind... by overcalling a weak nt, it seems to me that your team is perforce making the last guess

[Chamaco]

jtfanclub, on Nov 2 2004, 08:24 PM, said:

I disagree, to some extent.  Doubling 1♠ is as dangerous as a 1NT overcall. .

Doubling 1 spades for me is equivalent as doubling at the 2 level, since it forces a 2-level response.

When I referred to "doubling at the 1 level" I meant doubles that allow pard to respond 1 of a suit

[Ulrich]

Ah the fickleness of the young and inexperienced! You ask a question and expect a response; you don't like the answer; you dummy the spit.
I regard this overcall as totally unsound and find it hard to believe that anyone suggesting it could even remotely be called an eggspurt.

If you wish a method of competing more ofte, I suggest 1N to show a weak takeout - about 9-11 shapely and X to show the stronger takeout; this at least has merit and has been played by strong players internationally.

Ulrich Freiherr von Liechtenstein.

[Chamaco]

Quote

But since I'm balanced, the 4-4 fit is less likely to be useful to us.

I am sure you know the Law of symmetry: if you are balanced, thgey are balanced.
So why do you think making balanced opps lose the fit will matter but it does not matter if YOU lose the fit ?

In the real world, anytime you'll play weak NT, you'll lose as many fits as opps in the long run.
So this argument is neither a big plus nor a big minus.

other issues matter more, such as the "stealing" power of the weak NT, which loses effectiveness after they have opened striking the 1st blow.

Quote

If the bidding goes 1♠  P 2♠ P P, you aren't balancing with 1NT.  It's very difficult to know whether to bid or not, especially if you have length and strength in spades.  If you had bid 1NT, you can trust partner to know what to do.

If the bidding goes that way and you and pard have a combined 25-26 count, as you say, you can bet that the one with the spade shortness will double for takeout.

Almost any intermediate knows that when opps bid and raise we should strive to bid, and with the appropriate methods, if we have a combined 25 count, game will be bid without too much trouble.

Quote

I enjoyed your reply, and it did make me think.
But not enough to get rid of the 12-15 range, at least not until I'm ready to make the bid artificial.

Bridge is a partneship game, so as long as you and your partner are in tune, I think everything is fine.
At least you are forewarned of the potential risks of such approach :-)

[jtfanclub]

Various people:

Ulrich:

Quote

You ask a question

I asked the question of given a 12-15 NT overcall, what would you do in this situation? I didn't ask what people thought of a 12-15 NT overcall.

Don't get me wrong- I appreciate replies like pclayton's and chamaco's. Even if I plan to play 12-15 NT overcalls until I die (which I don't), it's still good to realize its weaknesses.

Chamaco:

Quote

I am sure you know the Law of symmetry: if you are balanced, thgey are balanced.

That may be a law from somewhere, but I call BS on it.

Take two cases:
1. I have four clubs and three diamonds, partner has three clubs and four diamonds.
2. I have six clubs and one diamond, partner has six diamonds and one club.

There's isn't a single mathematical reason why the opponents would tend to be balanced in the first case but not the second.

I've overcalled 1 NT, therefore I'm most likely balanced. RHO has opened one of a suit, therefore she's most likely NOT balanced (she didn't pass, she didn't bid 1NT, so the point range for unbalanced hands is much higher than the range for balanced ones). Therefore, fits for them are likely to be more powerful than fits for us.

Pclayton:

Quote

Both sides will present information that supports their position, so the discussion becomes more subjective than objective

Yes. I like responses where the positions are supported.

Quote

Doubling 2 of a minor is not dangerous at all to the defending side, but can be an absolute disaster playing the hand.

I disagree. If they have any fit at all, doubling two of a minor can be very dangerous to them. This system is designed for matchpoints, so making 2 of a minor doubled is a top board, even though it isn't game.

Quote

The original example you gave had QTxx in RHO's suit. This is a huge red flag for getting involved in the auction; since our having a fit is greatly diminished; as we have a stack in one of the opponents announced strains.

I agree, but that was part of the original question: if you were to play a 12-15 hcp NT overcall, would you use it only with 'takeout' points or shape, or would you use it as a general obstructive bid? I didn't realize it would turn into an argument about whether 12-15 NT should exist at all.

Quote

You seem to be under a mistaken assumption that the stronger we are, the weaker partner has to be.

Well, I'm under the assumption that the stronger I am, the weaker partner will be on average, yes.

Quote

I'm guessing the reason that the 12-15 NT doesn't get punished as often as you might think is that people are unfamiliar with the approach.

Perhaps. Perhaps I should run the odds that we have 17- HCP (with 18, we can most likely make 1NT), AND opener's partner has a penalty double, AND opener leaves it in (or opener has a penalty X and responder leaves it in), AND we don't have a good place to run. Pretty sure we can actually check that. I'll get back to you on that.

Quote

Many pairs have methods over 1N overcalls to ferret out their 4-4 major fits. One of the obvious is a 'raise' of the minor as sort of a negative double. Others play a version of capp or suction or DONT.

That's fine, but generally speaking you can't do both. You can double me for penalties, or you can look for your major suit fit. If you decide to look for a fit and you don't have one, or you decide not to look for a fit when you do, the results can be very good for us.

Quote

As far as getting posts like this when you suggest a method, well , sorry. We try to be objectivist here, and I for one won't always say what you want to hear. I only offer these ideas to help others, with the contract that my ideas will be objectively listened to and feedback granted.

When you put that much effort into a post, believe me, I will read it as objectively as I can, and try to give useful feedback.

I simply haven't found penalty X's to be a problem. Sure, they come up maybe 1 time in 10, and we don't have a good fit and can't leave it in maybe half the time, so perhaps 1 time in 20 we get a 0 from using it. But it's matchpoints, so it's just a 0.

We win when 1NT is the limit of the hand, or we find a good contract, or they miss out on their contract. Or when our partner doesn't balance, thinking I have a 12-14 point balanced hand. So far, it's worked to our advantage, but then I haven't played it in Australia or Irvine. So it could very well be our opposition.

[Chamaco]

jtfanclub, on Nov 3 2004, 08:16 AM, said:

There's isn't a single mathematical reason why the opponents would tend to be balanced in the first case but not the second. 

I've overcalled 1 NT, therefore I'm most likely balanced.  RHO has opened one of a suit, therefore she's most likely NOT balanced (she didn't pass, she didn't bid 1NT, so the point range for unbalanced hands is much higher than the range for balanced ones). Therefore, fits for them are likely to be more powerful than fits for us.

The whole point was:

Weak NT overcall may conceal opponents' fit, if the hcp split about evenly.
But the same applies to the weak NT overcaller, often he will lose a 44 fit.

My point was:
in the long run you will lose your own fit as often as you will have opps loe their fit.


Your point on this was the following: "since weak NT overcaller is balanced, if his pard is blanced, it's not so bad to lose a fit"

This concept does not seem sound, for at least 2 reason:

1- it is a proven fact that 4-4 fits, even if the 2 hands are balanced, tend take more trick that in a NT contract; there some occasional exceptions (e.g. 4333 hands, etc), and I am sure you'll build a hand to demonstrate the opposite , but you may ask any expert and he'll confirm that.
The fact that often a NT contract is preferable to a 44 MINOR fitdepends only by the form of scoring (Matchpoints), but when the fit is major, losing the 44 fit is a big loss, regardless of whether you are the opener or the weak NoTrumper;

2- you say that you do not care losing your fit if you and pard are balanced; but when both you and pard are balanced, opponents are also balanced most of the times.
If instead opener (or his pard) are unbalanced, then overcaller's pard will be unbalanced too, most of the times.
I won't argue with the mathematics, this (the Law of Symmetry) is a well known fact, but if you do not believe that, just try to run, say, 100 simulations.

So in this situation, with the 4 players balanced and hcp split, there is not a single reason why losing a fit shouldfavour more the weak NT overcaller rather than opener's side.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

1- it is a proven fact that 4-4 fits, even if the 2 hands are balanced, tend take more trick that in a NT contract; there some occasional exceptions (e.g. 4333 hands, etc), and I am sure you'll build a hand to demonstrate the opposite  , but you may ask any expert and he'll confirm that.

Um, I agree that if the two hands are balanced, that a 4-4 fit is worth one more trick. My point was if the two hands are unbalanced, a 4-4 fit is worth more than one more trick. So us losing our fit isn't as bad as them losing their fit, if we are balanced and they aren't.

Quote

The fact that often a NT contract is preferable to a 44 MINOR fitdepends only by the form of scoring (Matchpoints),

This system is designed exlusively for MPs. I wouldn't want to try it at IMPs. At MPs, getting -50 when they could get 120 is a top, and getting -1400 when they could get 120 is a bottom, and they cancel out. At IMPs, those phone numbers get to you quickly.

Quote

I won't argue with the mathematics,this (the Law of Symmetry) is a well known fact, but if you do not believe that, just try to run, say, 100 simulations.

I shouldn't have to...if it's a well known fact, there should have been some studies of it somewhere, right? Can anybody provide a link?

What I am claiming is, for any given total fit (say, 8-7-7-4), whether we're balanced has no bearing on whether they're balanced. I have no idea if that violates the Law of Symmetry or not. It does mean that if you're balanced, fits are less important to you than they are to the opponents, and if you're unbalanced, fits are more important to you than they are to the opponents.

[Gerben47]

Anyway, if partner is balanced it might not be so important not to find your fit, but overcalling 12-15 balanced means is just soliciting for double by third hand regardless of who is balanced or not.

[pbleighton]

"This system is designed exlusively for MPs. I wouldn't want to try it at IMPs. At MPs, getting -50 when they could get 120 is a top, and getting -1400 when they could get 120 is a bottom, and they cancel out. At IMPs, those phone numbers get to you quickly."

Well, OK

As I said in my earlier post (which wasn't meant to anger you), I might play it NV at matchpoints.

Vul at matchpoints, here's my problem (apart from reduced preemptiveness) - down two (and sometimes one) undoubled. As you say, the doubled contracts are infrequent enough that they can be mostly ignored at matchpoints, but not at IMPs. You do go down a fair amount opening a weak NT, as you know from playing it. You go down more frequently in an overcall than in an opening, given that, in an overcall, at least one opponent will always have an opening bid. -200 and -100 score quite differently at matchpoints than -100 and -50. It's frustrating for me to open a hand vul, go down, get a bottom, and realize that if we had been NV, we would have got a top. This will be more frequent as an overcall than as an opening.

I am considering abandoning the 12-14 NT vul (going to 14-16) because of the non doubled penalties (keep the 10-13 NV though). I probably won't in the short term, because my partner likes it, the opps make very silly bids over it sometimes, and I'm not quite ready for the complications of a weak/strong NT system, different inverted minor responses in particular.

Consider playing this only NV.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

I'm not angry any more...what I thought was going to turn into a shouting fest evolved into a good, supported conversation IMHO.

Want to know the odd part? The system my partner was playing last had 10-13 NT overcalls NV, 12-15 V. I was too uncomfortable with the range NV and asked that it be moved up. I find it much easier to bid as overcaller's responder with a 'solid' range (any hand that evaluates to 12+ is overcalled or doubles).

The NT is safer NV, but the pass becomes safer V. Knowing that I don't have 12 hcp may keep partner from balancing when it would turn out badly.