OCP-related Discussions > Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems
[Bidding problem] OCP simple system
Jimmy:
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.
brian_m:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Jimmy:
--- Quote from: brian_m 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Yup, full disclosure is the way to go. And, I agree on the comments concerning convention cards, especially ACBL. The ACBL is designed almost exclusively for Std Am 2/1. We do not play OCP Super Precision, and if we tried they would probably not allow it at our local club. They do not like that fact that we play a Strong Club System and think we have secret understandings. When asked (after alerting), we give them all the details (distribution, HCP count, intend, etc.). When we ask about there understandings we generally will receive vague answers, like we are supposed to understand the ACBL 2/1 system.
Never thought about what a ACBL Convention Card would look like in OCP. Good Question.
brian_m:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version