OCP Forums
OCP-related Discussions => Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems => Topic started by: Marcus7 on April 22, 2019, 08:00:43 AM
-
I have a question about a 1D sequence, if you open no-Vul 1D as 13-15 nt hand, p responds 1H and you have 4spades (without high honours) do you respond 1S or 1NT? Here is the full hand:
!S J987
!H K10
!D QJ10
!C AK102
Thanks for answers!
-
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.
-
Welcome to the Forum Marcus.
Excellent discussion question to boot.
Since Oliver is a world-class player and originator of the system, it is hard to disagree with him - especially when he emphatically puts it as "rebid 1 !S 20 times out of 10!" :)
However, I prefer bidding 1NT. IMO, the problem with the 1 !D Opening is its nebulous nature. In that regard, I think Opener's first duty should be to show partner his true hand type. IMO, bidding 1NT makes it easier for Responder to take appropriate action - bidding 1 !S still leaves the waters muddy.
That said, I am nowhere near the caliber of player as Oliver. Actually, I am your ordinary simple patzer - who frequently goofs on his Declarer play and quite a bit more on his defensive play. However, I do let my partner know that in the 1 !D-1 !H-1NT sequence, my 1NT bid does not deny a 4-card !S suit.
John
-
I would quibble with Oliver's answer - I think 20 times out of 10 is an underestimate! ;)
Seriously, John, I think it's not only your partner you need to tell about this, I think your 1NT rebid becomes alertable (certainly under BBO regulations, at least) if you say that you're playing Precision but are going to bypass a 4-card major.
You're also going to need to add something like Checkback to the system in order to look for a bypassed 4-4 !S fit.
I understand your point about wanting to show the balanced hand, but I really do think you're creating more problems than you're solving.
And what happens if your partner has 4=4=1=4 or 3=4=1=5 shape with insufficient HCP for an initial 2 !C response? Now pard is well and truly stuffed if 2 !C is Checkback - and particularly if your 1NT rebid is 11-12, your probably decent score on 4=4=1=4 is likely to change to a significant minus.
-
1 !D - 1 !H - 1NT with 4-card Spades...
...C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le Precision! :)
I always say that partnership agreement is king, and it's true. OCP is a system you can tweak to your heart's content, but there are some fundamental things about Precision, and particularly about OCP, that you change at your peril.
The simple 1 !D responses are geared to make it really hard to miss a 4-4 (or even a viable 4-3) Major fit when we're not strong enough to play beyond the 2-level (which is quite a lot of the time, let's face it).
One of the major criticisms of the Complex 1 !D is that it can make it much harder to find a 4-4 Major fit at a low level. Jason and I accepted that (albeit with some reluctance) because of it's perceived advantages in some other areas, but in reality there isn't much to choose between the Simple 1 !D and the Complex 1 !D .
Rebidding 1 !S on that hand does not preclude playing the hand in 1NT, but rebidding 1NT does make it almost impossible to find a 4-4 or 4-3 Spade contract when partner is fundamentally weak.
-
The simple 1 !D responses are geared to make it really hard to miss a 4-4 (or even a viable 4-3) Major fit when we're not strong enough to play beyond the 2-level (which is quite a lot of the time, let's face it).
If I may be forgiven a small amount of advertising, if you want to be sure of finding your major fits and greatly reduce the chances of playing in some silly !D contracts, then in 3rd and 4th seats I really do recommend that you give the 1 !D/1NT scheme from my old system a try. It's in the 'alternative treatments' forum. You should ONLY use this when responder is a passed hand, and cannot have a GF response. Oliver doesn't like the scheme because it means you give up on the pre-emptive 1NT opener (all 11-15 balanced hands are opened 1 !D, 1NT is reserved for hands with genuine !D) and I absolutely accept that he has a point, but having played the scheme for something in excess of 30 years, I'm firmly convinced that it's a net positive. I did have a scheme for using those NF must-show-a-4CM-even-with-0-HCP responses with an unpassed responder, but I absolutely accept OCP's superiority (yes, both the simple and the complex systems) when responder is unlimited.
One of the major criticisms of the Complex 1 !D is that it can make it much harder to find a 4-4 Major fit at a low level. Jason and I accepted that (albeit with some reluctance) because of it's perceived advantages in some other areas, but in reality there isn't much to choose between the Simple 1 !D and the Complex 1 !D .
I think I'm correct in saying that, apart from Oliver, I'm probably the one in this group with the greatest experience with the Complex 1 !D, and Oliver is, of course, absolutely correct about the problems. All that I want to add, having now had some experience with the Simple 1 !D, is that my opinion is that in playing the Complex 1 !D, you sacrifice something on the weaker part scores in exchange for significant improvements on invitational and GF hands (the Complex 1 !D is also a much greater load on the memory!). Personally, I think that's a worthwhile exchange.
-
I totally disagree with you John and and im in the same wave with Oliver. Just think John that p for many reasons dont want to play 1NT but he want to play 1!S (he can pass) even in a Moysian fit..........
-
For some dumb reason, I was thinking the auction as 1 !D-(1 !H)-P-(P)-? Don't ask me why, because after rereading it, Marcus was clear as the dickens it ran as 1 !D-(P)-1 !H-(P)-? :-[ Maybe, playing too much rugby as a loosehead prop at age 60+ is having an affect on my big cranium. :o
Anyway, if the auction was different - such as 1 !D-(1 !H)-P-(P)-? - are we still all going with 1 !S as rebid? Or X (in case of a trap pass by partner)? Or 1NT to clarify hand type?
-
Assuming that partner would make a negative double of the 1 !H overcall with 4 card !S unless horribly weak, there's no way I'm bidding 1 !S on !S J987 - if we don't end up buying the hand, the last thing I want is a !S lead! Cases could be made for 1NT, double and even a pass, depending on vulnerability, what you know of your partner's style and probably even the day of the week, but (at least for me) 1 !S isn't even on the list of possibilities. Now, if you were to take that hand and swap the two black suits, so that I have !S AK102 and !C J987, now 1 !S would be my choice.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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").
-
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.
Yes, Jimmy, Responder (and Opener) should keep the bidding open if they think their hand warrants it, but that's a million miles away from the sequence being forcing.
-
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 !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.
-
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. ;)
-
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 !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.
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.
-
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.
-
" 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 :)>
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.