[Bidding problem] OCP simple system

[brian_m]

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.

[Jimmy]

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 bid rather than risk a silly  contract.

Give me  Qxxx  Qxxx    x    Qxxx and I am going to bid 1 over 1 , and then pass opener's rebid, all day every day. Yes, sometimes I will end up in 2 rather than 1 , but when I do, opener will have a genuine  suit, and I will NOT be playing in 1 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  suit know enough to pass us out in 1 . And yes, for avoidance of doubt, I do alert 1 as "may be shaded if I hate  ").

Brian,  IMO we are debating the same point from different perspectives.   I would also bid 1 on Qxxx  Qxxx    x    Qxxx

Although,  I am not sure about the alert "may be shaded".  Hope you are kidding on that statement.   

Bridge would be so boring if the rules were strict.   

[Jimmy]

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.

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.   

[brian_m]

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 bid rather than risk a silly  contract.

Give me  Qxxx  Qxxx    x    Qxxx and I am going to bid 1 over 1 , and then pass opener's rebid, all day every day. Yes, sometimes I will end up in 2 rather than 1 , but when I do, opener will have a genuine  suit, and I will NOT be playing in 1 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  suit know enough to pass us out in 1 . And yes, for avoidance of doubt, I do alert 1 as "may be shaded if I hate  ").

Brian,  IMO we are debating the same point from different perspectives.   I would also bid 1 on Qxxx  Qxxx    x    Qxxx

Although,  I am not sure about the alert "may be shaded".  Hope you are kidding on that statement.   

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 over 1 as "8+ HCP, 4+ , may be shaded if I hate  ".  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 >

[Jimmy]

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.

[brian_m]

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.

[Jimmy]

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.

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.