Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - brian_m

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« on: April 29, 2019, 07:39:53 AM »
When I moved to the USA, in 1997, Pat and I were initially living in Newark, DE, as Pat worked at the Univ. of Delaware. The Univ was about 17,500 students. One guy put round fliers seeking to re-establish the U.Del. bridge club. Three people turned up to the meeting - Pat, myself and the would-be organiser.

There was a club in the town itself (still is, as a matter of fact, I know someone on BBO who plays there). The first time we went there, the TD came over at the end of the evening and told us we were welcome to come back, but that we must switch to playing "normal methods", i.e. SA(YC) or 2/1. Believe me, the Precision system I was playing with Pat didn't come close to OCP for complexity, and it was also (the equivalent of) GCC-legal in the UK.

We just said the hell with it, and played our bridge online thereafter.


17
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« on: April 29, 2019, 12:24:12 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:50:11 PM
I will be technical.   

IMO,  bridge rules would not have the 1 !D - P - 1 !H as alert or announcement during the bidding, since it is natural and contains at least 4 of the suit.  As for an announcements, they should be short and with few words.   Examples:  transfer, could be short, etc.   

Now,  the statement should be on your convention card and you should draw the opponents’ attention to your convention card before the round begins.

Jim, we have the WBF to thank for the fact that there are no laws governing what must be disclosed in the laws of bridge. How you must disclose, yes, but what is disclosable is specifically delegated down to the different national organisations, or regulating authorities I believe is the current technically correct term. What you must alert in the USA is very different from what you must alert in the UK, for example. There was a point in the UK when even Stayman was alertable, and also minor openings which could be on only 3 cards.

And as for the (damn silly!) rules which some countries have on disclosure via the convention card, don't even get me started on that! The English Bridge Union card was absolutely geared towards Acol players, and they also had the rule that all disclosure must be on the card, but that no supplementary sheets were allowed! So you were reduced to (as I used to do) blowing up a CC on a photocopier to an enormous size, filling it in with a map pen, and then shrinking it back down again. Was it legible? Well, yes, if you had 20/20 vision, and preferably even better than that. It was legal, though. No regulations covered the size of your writing.  ::)

BBO's rules are simple, you should alert anything that your opponents may not fully understand. My view of that regulation is that if your 1 !H response to 1 !D is usually made on a stronger hand than normal, you should alert it. I aim to give full disclosure. I would far rather give opponents information to which they are not strictly entitled than withhold something to which they are entitled.

I don't honestly know what the current ACBL convention card looks like. If you have one filled in for OCP, then please scan it and post it. I would be genuinely interested to see it.



18
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« on: April 29, 2019, 12:04:18 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:57:20 PM
Sh-t,  told you my grammar and expression was lacking.   8)

I know the  condition of game force was established.  And in fairness, have you's ever stopped short of 3NT and/or 5m?

Playing my old Precision system, yes, but we had one sequence where opener specifically showed a misfitting but otherwise flat 16 count, and responder was allowed to pass with exactly 8 HCP.

Playing OCP, or any other version of Precision without that escape sequence? No, never. You accept the occasional hand with 16 opposite 8 where no game can be made as the cost of making life a lot simpler on the vast majority of the other hands.

19
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« on: April 28, 2019, 10:43:42 PM »
Quote from: OliverC on April 28, 2019, 09:18:50 PM
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 :).

To be fair to Jim (hey, someone has to be!  ;) ) I've seen the term 'conditional game force' used before in books to describe a sequence that is GF or not based on some aspect of the other hand. An OCP example would be

1NT-2 !D-2 !H-2 !S

Personally I would describe 2 !S as "GF unless opener is an absolute minimum" or "GF unless opener rebids 2NT" but I would have no problems in seeing it described as a "conditional game force".

Tentative game forces, however, I've not met up with before.  ::)



20
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« on: April 28, 2019, 07:43:53 PM »


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?


21
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« on: April 28, 2019, 07:33:50 PM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: brian_m on April 28, 2019, 05:44:32 AM



Well, Jim, your opinion and my experience differ is all I can say. Especially if we are at adverse vulnerability and playing opponents who understand Precision, I will shade a 1 !H bid rather than risk a silly  !D contract.

Give me  !S Qxxx  !H Qxxx   !D x   !C Qxxx and I am going to bid 1 !H over 1 !D, and then pass opener's rebid, all day every day. Yes, sometimes I will end up in 2 !D rather than 1 !D, but when I do, opener will have a genuine  !D suit, and I will NOT be playing in 1 !D on a combined 3-card trump suit!

This may be (mildly) anti-system as far as OCP is concerned. I don't care. What I do care about is not going down -300 or more against a part score when opponents with a genuine  !D suit know enough to pass us out in 1 !D. And yes, for avoidance of doubt, I do alert 1 !H as "may be shaded if I hate  !D").


Brian,  IMO we are debating the same point from different perspectives.   I would also bid 1 !H on !S Qxxx  !H Qxxx   !D x   !C Qxxx

Although,  I am not sure about the alert "may be shaded".  Hope you are kidding on that statement.   :o

Bridge would be so boring if the rules were strict.   ;)


No, I'm absolutely serious. It depends on the opponents. If I think they are going to take the announced 8+ HCP as applying with arithmetic precision, then yes, I will alert 1 !H over 1 !D as "8+ HCP, 4+ !H, may be shaded if I hate  !D".  I always lean in the direction of more information rather than less when trying to give full disclosure. They should know what my partner knows, end of story. As far as I'm concerned (and I first wore a TD's hat in 1976) the rules on disclosure ARE strict.



22
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« on: April 28, 2019, 01:12:00 PM »
Quote from: OliverC on April 28, 2019, 08:19:24 AM
Anti-system or not, Brian, it's just plain common-sense. I do exactly the same with that hand type. The fundamental point here is that if Opener has shown an intermediate hand, the basic principal is that they cannot initiate a game-forcing sequence and in most instances cannot initiate any kind of forcing sequence except maybe an occasional bid that is forcing for 1 round (eg: new suit at the 3-level), but the likelyhood is that even there the whole sequence will probably be forcing because of a bid that Responder has made.

Absolutely! I was just trying to get Jim to see that his methods

Quote
"We" have learned not to bid over 1 !D unless we have a good 8 or 8+ HCP's.   This requirement is a partnership agreement.  But,  based on past experience, I would recommend that it be solid 8 or 8+ to respond to the 1 !D.  JMO

didn't bear out my experience, and I'm happy to hear you back it as well. Whatever happened to Jim for him to "learn" to require a good 8 HCP to bid over 1 !D was either not representative or he drew a false conclusion. The system notes do say that 1 !H or 1 !S over 1 !D is 8+ HCP. As ever, rules are there to be, well, if not broken, then certainly bent a little under certain circumstances.  ::)

This is why I still advocate the methods I've described in the alternative treatments forum over a 3rd or 4th seat 1 !D opener. Yes, I lose the pre-emptive effect of a 1NT opener in 3rd seat - but in exchange for that, I do NOT play silly 1 !D contracts, and I miss NO 4-4 major fits, and few 4-3 major fits, at the one level. The only time it happens, opener is 2=4=(4-3) shape and responder is 4=3=(whatever). Unless responder has a 5cm as well, we will end up in the same 1NT that you would open anyway. Responder is required to show a 4 card major even with a Yarborough. Of all the gadgets I've tried and failed to get you to incorporate into OCP, I think this is the one which is the most regrettable omission. I've played this scheme for more than 30 years, ever since it was published (as Smith-Gair responses) in the EBU quarterly, and I think the benefits are such that I will happily give up the obstructive effect of a 3rd seat 1NT opener.




23
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« on: April 28, 2019, 05:50:47 AM »
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


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.





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.


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.


24
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« on: April 28, 2019, 05:44:32 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 01:49:17 AM
Quote from: OliverC on April 27, 2019, 08:40:16 PM
1 !D - 1 !H - 1 !S is eminently, 100% and utterly passable, as Brian says. Opener has limited their hand by Opening 1 !D. Nothing they bid is forcing in any subsequent [natural] sequence, unless a forcing sequence is initiated by Responder.


This 1 !D - 2 !C - 2 !H is forcing, not because 2 !H is forcing, but because 2 !C is effectively forcing to 2NT and now Opener has reversed into 2 !H.


Similarly 1 !D - 1 !H - 2 !C - 2 !S - 3 !D is forcing, but only because the 2 !S reverse is 100% GF.


Bottom line is that it is effectively impossible for an intermediate Opener to initiate a forcing sequence. The impetus for that almost always comes from Responder. The only real exceptions would be splinters by Opener (eg: 1 !D - 2 !C - 3 !H, which would be violently agreeing Clubs and showing a Spade shortage).

OK,  I can definitely deal with the 1 !D-1 !H-1 !S as passable considering responder is on a dead minimum of 8 (which Brian has constructed), maybe 9 HCP with very poor distribution.  Not very likely or responder would have passed the 1 !D.  "We" have learned not to bid over 1 !D unless we have a good 8 or 8+ HCP's.   This requirement is a partnership agreement.  But,  based on past experience, I would recommend that it be solid 8 or 8+ to respond to the 1 !D.  JMO

 !S J987
 !H K10
 !D QJ10
 !C AK102

 !S Kxx   
 !H QJ10x   
 !D xx   
 !C Qxxx

In this discussion the original hand and Brians hand are shown above.  At worst 1NT would be down at most 2.  If doubled, the contract could easily be in 2 !C.  Not sure how 1 !S would end up.   Losers on AK !D, A !H, likely a  !C ruff.  Then the  !S's.

Well, Jim, your opinion and my experience differ is all I can say. Especially if we are at adverse vulnerability and playing opponents who understand Precision, I will shade a 1 !H bid rather than risk a silly  !D contract.

Give me  !S Qxxx  !H Qxxx   !D x   !C Qxxx and I am going to bid 1 !H over 1 !D, and then pass opener's rebid, all day every day. Yes, sometimes I will end up in 2 !D rather than 1 !D, but when I do, opener will have a genuine  !D suit, and I will NOT be playing in 1 !D on a combined 3-card trump suit!

This may be (mildly) anti-system as far as OCP is concerned. I don't care. What I do care about is not going down -300 or more against a part score when opponents with a genuine  !D suit know enough to pass us out in 1 !D. And yes, for avoidance of doubt, I do alert 1 !H as "may be shaded if I hate  !D").









25
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« 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


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.




26
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« on: April 27, 2019, 02:19:49 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 26, 2019, 11:55:24 PM
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!


27
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« on: April 26, 2019, 06:23:47 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 26, 2019, 02:54:22 AM
Rebid 1 !S 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 !S . 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 !S for a variety of reasons:

1.  It is the general system rule (unless modified by partnership).
2.  The 1 !S 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 !H response and also can still have up to 15 HCP's.
5.  The 1 !S 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 !S is passable if responder is dead minimum, or even slightly sub-minimum (responder scraped the barrel for a 1 !H response because they were short in  !D and wanted to avoid the possibility of being passed out in 1 !D if opener was short. Give me  !S Kxx   !H QJ10x   !D xx   !C Qxxx. If it goes 1 !D-1 !H-1 !S, I'm passing 1 !S 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  !S) 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 !D-1 !H-1NT is 13-15.



28
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« on: April 26, 2019, 06:11:51 AM »
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.

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

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.


29
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« 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.



30
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« on: April 25, 2019, 07:07:35 PM »
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

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.




Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6