[mr1303]

Hi everyone

In another thread regarding suction, destructive defences to strong 1C were mentioned. A pair I know who are involved in the England U25 set-up play the spade for a laugh defence overcall, where it shows any 13 cards not suitable for another bid. Is this legal, either in ACBL land or EBU land?

It would appear to me to be in breach of the Orange book law 9.1.5 which states that you may not have an agreement to make random calls, including overcalls

[jtfanclub]

mr1303, on Nov 12 2004, 05:38 PM, said:

where it shows any 13 cards not suitable for another bid.

Every bid shows any 13 cards not suitable for another bid.

Solely from reading this forum, I'm beginning to believe some people make systems specifically to try to conceal as many agreements from opponents as possible. This includes fequent 'psyches' in which partner isn't fooled at all. Luckily, whether it's here or in the club, I don't see people doing this in real life.

[whereagles]

I played that 1S overcall and I can tell you it doesn't have much technical merit

[DrTodd13]

We should be allowed to assign any meaning to calls that we want. Most people use (1♣)-Pass as the catch all but if you want to reverse the meanings of pass and 1♠ then who are we to say that they shouldn't do it? In my experience, the distributional hands will bid here so if you don't bid then you must have a balanced hand. This
puts partner in a good position to name the denomination if his RHO doubles your 1♠ bid. Poor precision players getting their bidding space stolen from them...boo hoo. They are trying to use their bidding space efficiently and I'll fight like hell to stop them.

[DrTodd13]

One note of differentiation. If your stated defense to 1♣ is, "we always bid 1♠ regardless of what we have" then I would disallow such a defense. Basically, if you've made some attempt with your other bids to do something descriptive and you therefore the 1♠ bid is defined as the absence of the other bids then that is fine.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

We should be allowed to assign any meaning to calls that we want.  Most people use (1♣)-Pass as the catch all but if you want to reverse the meanings of pass and 1♠ then who are we to say that they shouldn't do it?

It's not whether it's a should. It's whether it's legal. It isn't.

You are allowed to have pass as a catchall. All other bids must be rigidly defined.

Quote

In my experience, the distributional hands will bid here so if you don't bid then you must have a balanced hand.

And do you tell your opponents that? Or do you let them guess?

Quote

Poor precision players getting their bidding space stolen from them...boo hoo.

Nothing to do with space. 1 spade takes up one bid of space (the one level bids are now X, Pass, or 1NT instead of 1 diamond, 1 heart, 1 spade, or 1NT). Any Precision can handle that.

What we poor Precision players are unhappy about is that you have a bid which means something, but you refuse to tell us what. Claiming that a bid says "I don't have any other bid" should get you banned.

What does a one club opening mean? It means I don't have any other bid. How about a one spade opening? Same thing.

If you don't have a rigid definition of a bid (other than pass), then you're cheating. Pure and simple. A rigid definition doesn't mean it has to have only one meaning- nothing wrong with a multi two diamond bid, for example. For most people, that's very rigidly defined as a specific small set of hands. Nothing wrong with playing 1♠ over 1♣ as showing any 0-5 hcp or a balanced 5-8 hcp. That's just fine. But to define it as "13 cards" or "I don't have any other bid to make" is an undisclosed agreement between you and your partner. They asked you what the bid meant, and you didn't tell them.

If you can't understand why that's cheating, I can't help you.

[Free]

Here is my defense against strong ♣ systems:

Dbl = strong balanced
1♦ = strong unbalanced
1♥ = 0-3 ♥s, usually 4+♠s
1♠ = 0-3 ♠s
1NT = 5+m OR 4+♥&4+♠
2m = DONT
2M = natural, 5+ card

This means we can ALL hands with 1♥, 1♠ or 1NT, but these hands can still contain a hand we could've bid at 2-level. It's a matter of judgement rather than agreement what you bid. Look at following hand:

---

We can bid pass, 1♥, 2♣, 2♦ and 2♠ ( - 5 possible bids!!!), you just have to make your own decision what it's gonna be.

I think this method should be legal in most places, so use this instead of the random 1♠ if you really want to play something with a high 1♠ frequency and you're not allowed to play the random...

[jtfanclub]

Free, on Nov 13 2004, 07:19 AM, said:

We can bid pass, 1♥, 2♣, 2♦ and 2♠ ( - 5 possible bids!!!), you just have to make your own decision what it's gonna be.

Yes, you and your partner will know which one you'd pick, you just won't tell your opponents what each bid really means.

I rest my case.

[mikestar]

Free, on Nov 13 2004, 12:19 PM, said:

Here is my defense against strong ♣ systems:

Dbl = strong balanced
1♦ = strong unbalanced
1♥ = 0-3 ♥s, usually 4+♠s
1♠ = 0-3 ♠s
1NT = 5+m OR 4+♥&4+♠
2m = DONT
2M = natural, 5+ card

This means we can ALL hands with 1♥, 1♠ or 1NT, but these hands can still contain a hand we could've bid at 2-level.  It's a matter of judgement rather than agreement what you bid.  Look at following hand:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ Jxxxx ♥   ♦ Qxxx ♣ Qxxx

We can bid pass, 1♥, 2♣, 2♦ and 2♠ ( - 5 possible bids!!!), you just have to make your own decision what it's gonna be.

I think this method should be legal in most places, so use this instead of the random 1♠ if you really want to play something with a high 1♠ frequency and you're not allowed to play the random... 

As stated, just as illegal as the random spade. Now if there were some judgement criteria which were explained to the openents, this is another question. If for example the 2m and 2M bids and the minor 1 suited possiblilty for 1N required concentrated honors and hands with scattered honors are bid at the one level, this is a legal defense. It could also be stiputated that geniune three suiters would be bid at the one level.

The theoretical standard of full discloure is: if an opponent were given your hand, the conditons, the auction, and complete knowledge of your bidding methods and bidding judgement, could accurately predict your bid.

No one achieves this in practice--but a method which is designed to make it impossible is illegal. With your methods as stated, you must be choosing how to bid the example hand by some random means (board number? hair color of LHO? flipping a mental coin?).

Note that this is differrent from randomizing a choice between two well-defined alternatives when a hand is truly borderline. An opponent equipped as above wouldn't know what your bid would be, but would know you were on a blind guess between two borderline alternatives--that is, he would know as much as you do.

By the way, I am not necessarily saying that random methods should be illegal--but they are illegal, even at the highest levels.

[MickyB]

"Not suitable for any other bid" is not a permitted agreement, as the term 'bid' does not include pass and double. This is important, you cannot choose randomly between 1♠ and pass. However, "not suitable for any other call" is fine, as long as those other calls are then described (IMO this should be immediately and without prompting).

Whether a 1♠ overcall that is made on any hand (including hands with a solid 9 card suit) is legal is a different matter, however I know of no reason why it should not be.

[Free]

jtfanclub, on Nov 13 2004, 04:28 PM, said:

Free, on Nov 13 2004, 07:19 AM, said:

We can bid pass, 1♥, 2♣, 2♦ and 2♠ ( - 5 possible bids!!!), you just have to make your own decision what it's gonna be.

Yes, you and your partner will know which one you'd pick, you just won't tell your opponents what each bid really means.

I rest my case.

2-level bids are usually more constructive, while 1♥ and 1♠ are destructive, unless you have a semi-strong hand which will bid in the 2nd turn. Any other questions which might be important to consider if this method is legal in your ACBL? (btw, here in Belgium ANY defense against strong ♣ and NT is allowed, so I myself don't really care if it's legal over there or not)

I'm not pathetic not to explain difference between possible bids. However I won't give a HCP count on something, so it would obstruct my own creativity in bidding and hand evaluation. If I would say 6-9 HCP and partner has a 6-5 with 4 HCP you could say I'm a lyer (or my partner), which I'm not...

[hrothgar]

mikestar, on Nov 13 2004, 07:55 PM, said:

As stated, just as illegal as the random spade. Now if there were some judgement criteria which were explained to the openents, this is another question. If for example the 2m and 2M bids and the minor 1 suited possiblilty for 1N required concentrated honors and hands with scattered honors are bid at the one level, this is a legal defense. It could also be stiputated that geniune three suiters would be bid at the one level.


The theoretical standard of full discloure is: if an opponent were given your hand, the conditons, the auction, and complete knowledge of your bidding methods and bidding judgement, could accurately predict your bid.

No one achieves this in practice--but a method which is designed to make it impossible is illegal. With your methods as stated, you must be choosing how to bid the example hand by some random means (board number? hair color of LHO? flipping a mental coin?).

I'd love to see any kind of official ruling that backs this statement.
I'll also be VERY surprised if you can find one.

I've seen this topic discussed several times on the Bridge Laws mailing list over the years. There is a general consensus that mixed strategies are complete legitimate.

[mikestar]

hrothgar, on Nov 14 2004, 02:20 PM, said:

mikestar, on Nov 13 2004, 07:55 PM, said:

As stated, just as illegal as the random spade. Now if there were some judgement criteria which were explained to the openents, this is another question. If for example the 2m and 2M bids and the minor 1 suited possiblilty for 1N required concentrated honors and hands with scattered honors are bid at the one level, this is a legal defense. It could also be stiputated that geniune three suiters would be bid at the one level.


The theoretical standard of full discloure is: if an opponent were given your hand, the conditons, the auction, and complete knowledge of your bidding methods and bidding judgement, could accurately predict your bid.

No one achieves this in practice--but a method which is designed to make it impossible is illegal. With your methods as stated, you must be choosing how to bid the example hand by some random means (board number? hair color of LHO? flipping a mental coin?).

I'd love to see any kind of official ruling that backs this statement.
I'll also be VERY surprised if you can find one.

I've seen this topic discussed several times on the Bridge Laws mailing list over the years. There is a general consensus that mixed strategies are complete legitimate.

It isn't an offical ruling--it is an interpretation of several offical rulings including the WBF rule against random calls. It is my own attempt to state a rationale (which I don't necessarily agree with) for the various prohibitons on random/ destructive calls.

My understanding of the laws and rulings is that the method outlined (as well as the random spade) are illegal. I would like to see the rulings that indicate otherwise.

You may assert that the laws guarantee the right to bid this way and the rulings to the contrary are illegal. This may be true in so far as natural bids are concerned but it is manifestly untrue as far as conventional calls are concerned. These ruling with regard to conventions may by ill-advised or unfair, but they are perfectly legal. A governing body is free to impose any restrictions it chooses on conventions, including banning them entirely--the extreme case is the Portland Club in England, where you can't play Stayman, Blackwood or takeout doubles. (I imagine that if a pair came to the Portland wanting to play Moscito, the only debate the Card Comittee would have is whether summary execution is called for or would a severe maiming be sufficient.)

[hrothgar]

mikestar, on Nov 14 2004, 08:43 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 14 2004, 02:20 PM, said:

mikestar, on Nov 13 2004, 07:55 PM, said:

As stated, just as illegal as the random spade. Now if there were some judgement criteria which were explained to the openents, this is another question. If for example the 2m and 2M bids and the minor 1 suited possiblilty for 1N required concentrated honors and hands with scattered honors are bid at the one level, this is a legal defense. It could also be stiputated that geniune three suiters would be bid at the one level.


The theoretical standard of full discloure is: if an opponent were given your hand, the conditons, the auction, and complete knowledge of your bidding methods and bidding judgement, could accurately predict your bid.

No one achieves this in practice--but a method which is designed to make it impossible is illegal. With your methods as stated, you must be choosing how to bid the example hand by some random means (board number? hair color of LHO? flipping a mental coin?).

I'd love to see any kind of official ruling that backs this statement.
I'll also be VERY surprised if you can find one.

I've seen this topic discussed several times on the Bridge Laws mailing list over the years. There is a general consensus that mixed strategies are complete legitimate.

It isn't an offical ruling--it is an interpretation of several offical rulings including the WBF rule against random calls. It is my own attempt to state a rationale (which I don't necessarily agree with) for the various prohibitons on random/ destructive calls.

My understanding of the laws and rulings is that the method outlined (as well as the random spade) are illegal. I would like to see the rulings that indicate otherwise.

You may assert that the laws guarantee the right to bid this way and the rulings to the contrary are illegal. This may be true in so far as natural bids are concerned but it is manifestly untrue as far as conventional calls are concerned. These ruling with regard to conventions may by ill-advised or unfair, but they are perfectly legal. A governing body is free to impose any restrictions it chooses on conventions, including banning them entirely--the extreme case is the Portland Club in England, where you can't play Stayman, Blackwood or takeout doubles. (I imagine that if a pair came to the Portland wanting to play Moscito, the only debate the Card Comittee would have is whether summary execution is called for or would a severe maiming be sufficient.)

Consider the following very simple example of mixed strategies during bidding

Zia is a well known propponent of so-called "Sting" cue bids and splinters in which a players fakes a control in a suit during slam auctions. He plays this style as a conventional agreement in many partnerships and documents this fact.

Sting cue-bids are an obvious, albight simple example of mixed bidding strategies [what you are calling "random" calls].

This bidding style is clearly permissable.

[EarlPurple]

I have one thing to say about this. If it's going to be legal against a strong club it should be legal against other bids too.

I am fed up of the authorities making strong club systems inferior by allowing actions against them that they don't allow against their own pet system (be it SAYC or Acol or whatever).

[Free]

If you want to play destructive methods against a normal opening, go ahead, it won't work well I'm afraid.

Fact is that strong ♣ systems are better than natural systems if you don't allow destructive methods against their 1♣ opening. Limited openings have numerous advantages, 1♣ is a garbage can. Let them bid their 1♣ structure and natural systems will disappear in a while...

[mycroft]

I can understand EarlPurple's comment - I have leanings that way, too - but I tend to agree with the "live by convention, die by convention" attitude that most SOs take.

Basically, if you want to bid naturally, we will protect you to some extent. But if you don't, they get carte blanche on defence. Of course, you get carte blanche in reply, if they use a conventional defence...

The regulation doesn't single out strong clubbers; the same reg tends to apply to Flannery, strong, artificial 2 clubs, Gambling 3NT and Opening Blackwood. It happens more often against strong clubbers, though, because 1 club doesn't just maximize the space available to the opening side :-). It's just so much harder to effectively use a wonderbid approach to a Flannery 2D opening. Frankly, it's the fact that a strong, but not too strong , artificial 1 club opening is so peculiarly suited to lottery-defence tactics that is the prime reasoning behind Swedish and Polish multi-way clubs.

On the other hand, the Granovetters and others recommend a "ok, let's gamble, too" defence to Multi 2D...

And I'm waiting for the day I get to play my "we open all 8-counts at the 1 level" system, with a wonderbid defence to takeout doubles. Should get TD calls just short of the frequency EHAA 2-bids get!

Michael.

[luke warm]

heah heah, as we say down heah

[EarlPurple]

The "standard" 1♣ opening can be:

- A balanced hand, 12-14 points with at least 3 clubs
- An unbalanced hand, usually around 11-20 points, usually with 5+ clubs but occasionally a 4-4-4-1 hand with clubs being one of the suits. Sometimes it may be stronger than 20 points.
- A balanced hand with 18-19 points with at least 3 clubs.

Because it is so undescriptive I have found that weak jump overcalls work very well against it.

Even a 1♠ call can work well against it. Do the opponents play non-forcing free bids? (i.e. a 2♥ bid now shows competitive values, usually around 6-9 points and often a 6 card suit) If so, they are in trouble when the responder has a forcing response with 5 hearts. If they do not play non-forcing free bids, they are in trouble when the responder has a competitive hand with long hearts.

Right, I have so far convinced you that a 1♠ overcall works well. Also a weak jump overcall works well.

So I want to be able to come in with these sorts of bids as often as possible. Clearly we need methods for when the auction is our own, but we could start all good hands with Dbl and make most of our bids weak but constructive, whilst even having one or two bids which are primarily destructive.

But whatever the merits of such methods, I feel that if it is licensed to do such things over a strong 1♣, it should be licensed over a regular 1♣ too.

Not licensing such is caused by one of two things:

- Trying to encourage weaker players to compete by giving them one system they may play with the guarantee that the opps won't use a complex defence over it. i.e. authorities like the ACBL want as many as possible to be able to take part in their tournaments (more money for them).

- Trying to encourage all players to use the authorities' pet system, i.e. Standard American or Acol or whatever rather than a 1♣ system.

[pclayton]

The ACBL tries to protect the flock. If they start with a natural system, you must play somewhat of a natural system over it. If they start with an artificial system, you can pretty much play anything you want over it.

I get a kick out of the labels the league uses. Apparently the 1♠ overcall in question is considered 'destructive'. Well, then what the hell is CRASH then?

Typical CRASH auction at green vulnerability by a couple of operators (I cant believe I'm divulging my tool box here )

(1♣) - 1♥ - (Dbl) - 3♠.

1♥ = 2 suits of the same shape.
Dbl = "card showing"
3♠ = pass or correct

The 3♠ bidder holds:

x
xx
Axxxx
Axxxx

If the opponents want to defend 3♠ UNDOUBLED; fine. Partner will PASS 3♠ if he holds ♠ / ♦, but will retreat to 4♣ if he holds ♥ / ♣. Either way, we have a safe landing.

By the way, we always alert the responses to CRASH as a possible psyche.