OCP-related Discussions > Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems
001 OVER INTERFERE
brian_m:
--- Quote from: lute57 on April 25, 2019, 03:49:14 PM ---IMO, it is highly unlikely you would want to punish the opponent in that auction if the natural 2 !S overcall is legitimate. They are sitting OVER you. You are not sitting OVER them.
Different story if they are deliberating taking advantage of your bidding system and making the overcall with such heinous quality as xxxxx and 0 HCP - maybe the same type of opponents as Brian mentioned?
My advice is not to play against that type of individual. No one wants to play against someone who interferes just for the sake of disruption. Indeed, these are the same types of folk that would play you on-line while having a telephone connection to their partner. If that is their style of play, so be it; but I will not be regarding them as good players - and I do not think you should be forced to modify your bidding system in order to accommodate such miscreants.
John
--- End quote ---
I couldn't possibly disagree more with you, John. Provided it doesn't violate some regulation, e.g. the infamous "Random 1 !S" overcall over a strong 1 !C that shows any 13 cards, you are fully entitled to exploit any weaknesses in your opponents' bidding system. Otherwise you might just as well outlaw all defensive bidding. If I know that opponents can't easily double me for penalties, then my pre-empts become a LOT more aggressive. That's just good bridge, IMHO.
However, the phone connection to your partner is an entirely different matter. That's cheating in its purest form, and can never be acceptable.
OliverC:
I'm not sure that we've ever addressed this exact kind of sequence (eg: 1 !C - 1NT - (2 !S =Nat), or 1 !C - 1 !H - (2 !H =Nat).
* If Opps' bid is ostensibly natural, then there is a good case for
* Keeping Pass as Gamma (ie: Opps' bid is an almost certain psyche and Opener has decent support).
* If Opener has their own long suit elsewhere they want to ask about, they can do so
* Forget Double being the suit below and make it strictly for penalties with a holding such as Hx. If Opps run to something else we should be well placed to penalise them there as well (If Opener has no long suits of their own, they're likely strong balanced).
* With a shortage in Partner's suit we can leave 2NT as being HoC to see if Partner has any more of their suit or a second suit to show and fall back on 3NT if they're semi-balanced.On the other hand, I must confess I don't think I have ever [in over 40 years of playing Precision] seen this kind of sequence at the table where Opps have overcalled a suit positive with a genuine bid of the same suit, so maybe John is right and making any changes to accommodate such an unlikely sequence is a waste of effort.
brian_m:
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 !C-(p)-1 !H-(2 !S). 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.
Jimmy:
--- Quote from: brian_m on April 25, 2019, 08:51:50 PM ---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 !C-(p)-1 !H-(2 !S). 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.
--- End quote ---
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 !C - Positive Response - Interference.
Thanks, Jim
brian_m:
--- Quote from: Jimmy on April 26, 2019, 03:33:11 AM ---
--- Quote from: brian_m on April 25, 2019, 08:51:50 PM ---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 !C-(p)-1 !H-(2 !S). 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.
--- End quote ---
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 !C - Positive Response - Interference.
Thanks, Jim
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version