Dick,

Jimmy plays a hybrid system that he developed, I thought he had a similar idea to Brian's, too. Maybe he can elaborate.

John

Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:50:11 PM

I will be technical.   

IMO,  bridge rules would not have the 1 - P - 1 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 response to 1 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.

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.

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).

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 -(p)-1 -(2 ). 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.