OCP-related Discussions > Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems
[Bidding problem] OCP simple system
brian_m:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
Jimmy:
--- Quote from: brian_m on April 28, 2019, 05:44:32 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 01:49:17 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").
--- End quote ---
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. ;)
--- End quote ---
Jimmy:
--- Quote from: brian_m 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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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 !D 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 !D alternative treatment and will look it up. Thanks.
brian_m:
--- 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").
--- End quote ---
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. ;)
--- End quote ---
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.
OliverC:
" As far as I'm concerned (and I first wore a TD's hat in 1976) the rules on disclosure ARE strict. "
Amen to that! <here insert a choir of heavenly angels singing something suitably angelic :)>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version