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 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 .  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 was either not representative or he drew a false conclusion. The system notes do say that 1 or 1 over 1 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 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 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.

Hey guys,  I agree with your statements and analysis.    I don't think we are that far apart.  (grammar and expression are not my forte). 

As for the 8 HCP requirement.  We were originally playing the 1 responses very loosely 6-7 HCP's  and got burnt a couple of times. 

I respect your bridge experience and have seeked it out on this website.    I am now very interested in Brian's 1 alternative treatment and will look it up.  Thanks.   

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

"We" have learned not to bid over 1 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 .  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 was either not representative or he drew a false conclusion. The system notes do say that 1 or 1 over 1 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 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 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.

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 -(p)-1 -(2 )

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 's, )
2NT is alpha in suit below
3NT balanced strong strength, strength TBD (22+) and again no more than 2 '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 positive was on    xx  KQJxx  xx    KJxx. Please tell me whether I bid 3 over the double or pass it out, and why.

1 - 1 - 1 is eminently, 100% and utterly passable, as Brian says. Opener has limited their hand by Opening 1 . Nothing they bid is forcing in any subsequent [natural] sequence, unless a forcing sequence is initiated by Responder.


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


Similarly 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 is forcing, but only because the 2 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 - 2 - 3 , which would be violently agreeing Clubs and showing a Spade shortage).

OK,  I can definitely deal with the 1 -1 -1 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 .  "We" have learned not to bid over 1 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 .  JMO

  J987
  K10
  QJ10
  AK102

  Kxx   
  QJ10x   
  xx   
  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 .  Not sure how 1 would end up.   Losers on AK , A , likely a  ruff.  Then the  's.

Brian,  would like to take that theory one more step.   Using this example....1 -(p)-1 -(2 )

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 's, )
2NT is alpha in suit below
3NT balanced strong strength, strength TBD (22+) and again no more than 2 '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.