OCP-related Discussions > Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems
001 OVER INTERFERE
Jimmy:
--- Quote from: brian_m on April 27, 2019, 09:16:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jimmy on April 27, 2019, 03:45:55 AM ---Brian, would like to take that theory one more step. Using this example....1 !C-(p)-1 !H-(2 !S)
Penalty System with interference and balanced hands with no trump support for partners bid.
pass is gamma
double is either penalty or HoC (openers hand is balanced good strength, medium strength TBD (16-21), no more than 2 !H's, )
2NT is alpha in suit below
3NT balanced strong strength, strength TBD (22+) and again no more than 2 !H's, possible slam (can use stayman ?)
Note: Without interference than 2NT would be normal HoC
--- End quote ---
I still don't really like it, Jim, as you're making responder guess opener's hand. Either/or doubles are a pet hate of mine if it means a guess of whether to pass it out or not. The cynic in me calls them "blame transfer doubles", in other words you can double on a wide range of hands and then blame partner when they guess wrong. Two-way doubles are fine if they're forcing in any event, or if the action taken depends on the responder's own hand rather than the doubler's hand.
I'm not saying that your scheme is unplayable, just that I personally don't like it.
--- End quote ---
Really appreciate the responses.
Yes, there is "some" guessing on the part of responder. Opener's double (over interference) better defines his/her distribution and limits the HCP's. And in this case (as you indicated), "the action taken depends on the responder's own hand rather than the doubler's hand", since opener is better defining the hand. The proposal is that a double (over interference) shows balanced hand with HCP limit and is either convertible or HoC.
The technique does tell responder two things, openers hand is 'balanced" and capped at 16-19/20/21 HCP's depending on the partnership agreement. Responder has a better feel for whether or not slam is possible and can estimate the penalty potential (Vul vs NVul). Note: There is also potential for responder to bid 2NT and that would set up a whole different sequence.
The 3NT bid indicates a balanced hand with 20/21/22+ HCP's (again depending on partnership agreement) and responder can proceed if she/he thinks game is better or slam is possible.
Also, IMO this technique of two-way double with interference (Penalty or HoC) should "not" be used when opener has a distributional hand.
brian_m:
--- Quote from: Jimmy on April 27, 2019, 11:01:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: brian_m on April 27, 2019, 09:16:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jimmy on April 27, 2019, 03:45:55 AM ---Brian, would like to take that theory one more step. Using this example....1 !C-(p)-1 !H-(2 !S)
Penalty System with interference and balanced hands with no trump support for partners bid.
pass is gamma
double is either penalty or HoC (openers hand is balanced good strength, medium strength TBD (16-21), no more than 2 !H's, )
2NT is alpha in suit below
3NT balanced strong strength, strength TBD (22+) and again no more than 2 !H's, possible slam (can use stayman ?)
Note: Without interference than 2NT would be normal HoC
--- End quote ---
I still don't really like it, Jim, as you're making responder guess opener's hand. Either/or doubles are a pet hate of mine if it means a guess of whether to pass it out or not. The cynic in me calls them "blame transfer doubles", in other words you can double on a wide range of hands and then blame partner when they guess wrong. Two-way doubles are fine if they're forcing in any event, or if the action taken depends on the responder's own hand rather than the doubler's hand.
I'm not saying that your scheme is unplayable, just that I personally don't like it.
--- End quote ---
Really appreciate the responses.
Yes, there is "some" guessing on the part of responder. Opener's double (over interference) better defines his/her distribution and limits the HCP's. And in this case (as you indicated), "the action taken depends on the responder's own hand rather than the doubler's hand", since opener is better defining the hand. The proposal is that a double (over interference) shows balanced hand with HCP limit and is either convertible or HoC.
The technique does tell responder two things, openers hand is 'balanced" and capped at 16-19/20/21 HCP's depending on the partnership agreement. Responder has a better feel for whether or not slam is possible and can estimate the penalty potential (Vul vs NVul). Note: There is also potential for responder to bid 2NT and that would set up a whole different sequence.
The 3NT bid indicates a balanced hand with 20/21/22+ HCP's (again depending on partnership agreement) and responder can proceed if she/he thinks game is better or slam is possible.
Also, IMO this technique of two-way double with interference (Penalty or HoC) should "not" be used when opener has a distributional hand.
--- End quote ---
I still don't like it. The bidding has gone as you suggest, with opener making your two-way double, and my 1 !H positive was on !S xx !H KQJxx !D xx !C KJxx. Please tell me whether I bid 3 !C over the double or pass it out, and why.
Jimmy:
[/quote]
I still don't like it. The bidding has gone as you suggest, with opener making your two-way double, and my 1 !H positive was on !S xx !H KQJxx !D xx !C KJxx. Please tell me whether I bid 3 !C over the double or pass it out, and why.
[/quote]
IMO, you would definitely bid 3 !C removing the double. There is already a tentative game force (not absolute). The hand is almost minimum and not a good defensive hand. You do not have 6 !H's. In addition, partner has shown balanced distribution with 16-19/20 HCP's. It's beginning to look like 3NT is the best contract.
brian_m:
I still don't like it. The bidding has gone as you suggest, with opener making your two-way double, and my 1 !H positive was on !S xx !H KQJxx !D xx !C KJxx. Please tell me whether I bid 3 !C over the double or pass it out, and why.
[/quote]
IMO, you would definitely bid 3 !C removing the double. There is already a tentative game force (not absolute). The hand is almost minimum and not a good defensive hand. You do not have 6 !H's. In addition, partner has shown balanced distribution with 16-19/20 HCP's. It's beginning to look like 3NT is the best contract.
[/quote]
I have to disagree again. After 1 !C-1 !H there is an absolute game force, unless the opponents offer us a more lucrative alternative. I'm just trying to understand how your responder is supposed to tell the difference between an opener who has doubled to show the flat balanced hand and the opener who has the full-blooded penalty double. Let me turn the question around. On what sort of 1 !H positive do you expect responder to assume that opener's double is for penalties, rather than being a balanced 16-19/20?
OliverC:
LOLOL ...I was just going to say, you cannot have a "tentative" game force. A bid is either game-forcing or it isn't. A positive response to 1 !C, playing OCP or Precision, is 1,000,000% game-forcing!!!! A bid cannot be 50.0001% GF :).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version