mistakes always is made......
and of course there are some players that never ask over a bid even if ops knock down (want to explain) because they believe that may ops ''wake up'' from a missunderstand.........

m

HoC is absolutely essential to the system, Jim. The reason is that, if you look at the responses to the trump asking bids when responder is NOT 4441 (so exclude Eta), they fairly clearly assume that asker (or responder, if it's gamma) has at least 5 cards in the suit. You can tell this from the level of the responses which agree trumps. Unless you really like playing Moysian fits, HoC is the way to go if you need to look for 4-4 fits. So the answer to question 2 is that yes, it could, but in order to do so you need to come up with an alternative way for opener to bid a balanced hand when responder is also balanced, or when opener is 4432 or even 4441 (though opener must have a powerhouse, 24+, if 4441) with the shortage in the suit of responder's positive. I put a lot of thought into trying to give opener a penalty double when opps interfere, and it's not easy.


[/quote]

Got it,  thanks.   Just thought I would ask.   A lot of opponents think they can freely enter the Strong Club auctions at the lower level  without penalty.  There must be some dual option bid.   Have you considered this sequence:
pass is gamma
double shows balanced hand and is either penalty or HoC (responder now knows you are balanced and decides on HoC or penalty).
2NT is suit below
[/quote]

The problem with that idea is that opener is unlimited, and you're making the weaker hand decide on whether to look for 4-4 fits or play for penalties. How does responder know whether opener has a minimum 16 HCP balanced or is very much stronger? Responder can't know whether to assess the possible penalty against a game our way or a slam our way. Don't let me discourage you from thinking of ideas, Jim, but there's been an awful lot have been tried over the years, and nobody has yet come up with a foolproof way of handling pre-emption - nobody would do it if they had!

Rebid 1 20 times out of 10:
(1) It's more constructive
(2) The priority in your bidding should be to find "somewhere else" to play. Finding a Major suit fit is the No 1 priority and opting to play in NT's in the absence of a Major fit is a close second.
(3) Depending on how the subsequent bidding goes, partner will realise that you may be 13-15 balanced, even when you've rebid 1 . Rebidding 1NT, however, categorically denies having 4-card Spades and nothing you do subsequently would ever convince an OCP Partner that you have a 4th Spade.

I would quibble with Oliver's answer - I think 20 times out of 10 is an underestimate! 

I agree with both Oliver and Brian's comments.  In the example given, IMO opener should definitely bid 1 for a variety of reasons:

1.  It is the general system rule (unless modified by partnership).
2.  The 1 bid should still be considered one round forcing. 
3.  Opener can still have up to 15 HCP and in this example has 14 HCP with 3-10's, a QJ10 + J987 combos. 
4.  Responder has shown 8+ HCP with the 1 response and also can still have up to 15 HCP's.
5.  The 1 bid allows responder to show his values/distribution. 
6.  And 1NT by opener sort of indicates a minimum hand.   

JMO,  Jim

I disagree with a couple of those points, Jim.

Point 2) I think 1 is passable if responder is dead minimum, or even slightly sub-minimum (responder scraped the barrel for a 1 response because they were short in  and wanted to avoid the possibility of being passed out in 1 if opener was short. Give me  Kxx    QJ10x    xx    Qxxx. If it goes 1 -1 -1 , I'm passing 1 without a moment's thought.

Point 6) Whether opener is maximum or minimum depends on vulnerability, to a large extent. What 1NT indicates (as well as denying 4-card  ) is a balanced hand of the wrong range to have opened 1NT. If we are NV, and the mini 1NT is in force, then 1 -1 -1NT is 13-15.

I'm in total agreement with Oliver, and you can add my 40 years of Precision to his, I can't recall opponents who ever made such a bid (and it's so fantastically unlikely that I think it would have stuck in my memory). The idea of changing the methods of dealing with intervention to cope with an overcall showing the same suit is simply a non-starter on  grounds of frequency.

Such discussions as I had with Oliver on these forums were focused on more likely sequences, e.g. 1 -(p)-1 -(2 ). I still feel that OCP tends too much towards trying to bid rather than penalising intervention, but I accept that I've done my best to push that viewpoint yet failed to convince Oliver.

Hi,  really like these questions and discussions.  However, they do test my lack of knowledge about the OCP System.  With that said,  I have two questions:

1.  Is the 2NT (HOC) bid mostly effective in auctions without interference? 

2.  Can the interference sequence be modified so that the 2NT bid is used for the asking bid and the double (X) is penalty.  Seems like the system only loses one level of bidding if the 2NT (normally HOC) is changed to 2NT (asking) for 1 - Positive Response - Interference. 

Thanks,  Jim

I'm in total agreement with Oliver, and you can add my 40 years of Precision to his, I can't recall opponents who ever made such a bid (and it's so fantastically unlikely that I think it would have stuck in my memory). The idea of changing the methods of dealing with intervention to cope with an overcall showing the same suit is simply a non-starter on  grounds of frequency.

Such discussions as I had with Oliver on these forums were focused on more likely sequences, e.g. 1 -(p)-1 -(2 ). I still feel that OCP tends too much towards trying to bid rather than penalising intervention, but I accept that I've done my best to push that viewpoint yet failed to convince Oliver.