[Free]

I play 1♠ as 0-3♠s, which is almost as good as "any 13 cards". Of course there are hands where we don't bid 1♠ while holding less than 4 ♠s, but that is indeed a mixed strategy. I've bid 1♠ on a 7 card ♥ from AJ9, which definitely had some other options available (I've bid 3♥ and 4♥ with similar hands for example). This actually proves that 1♠ can be bid on any hand with 0-3♠s. Stretching this method to "any 13 cards" is just a small step, with similar principles...

[SoTired]

That ACBL rule barring methods designed to destroy opps methods was written specifically to bar the "1S overcall of strong 1C = 13 cards." This is proper since the 1S random overcall means that NS can never properly use their 1C opening and have zero knowledge of opps hand to compensate. They might as well play 1S=16+ and 1C=5s, <16 instead.

The 1S bid is not bridge.

[Free]

SoTired, on Sep 3 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

That ACBL rule barring methods designed to destroy opps methods was written specifically to bar the "1S overcall of strong 1C = 13 cards." This is proper since the 1S random overcall means that NS can never properly use their 1C opening and have zero knowledge of opps hand to compensate. They might as well play 1S=16+ and 1C=5s, <16 instead.

The 1S bid is not bridge.

Why is 1♠ not bridge and 1♣ is?

1♣ shows EVERY distribution, 16+HCP
1♠ shows EVERY distribution, 0-24HCP

What's the difference?

What about 1♦ openings with 0+♦? Thats "pretty much every distribution with 10-15HCP". Is this bridge?

[SoTired]

Then what does pass show? 1S becomes a forced psyche. Advancer will know from experience what hand types the 1S overcaller might have and could never explain it to the opps.

I repeat: the 1S random overcall is not just illegal, I would consider it cheating.

[kenberg]

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

SoTired, on Sep 3 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

That ACBL rule barring methods designed to destroy opps methods was written specifically to bar the "1S overcall of strong 1C = 13 cards." This is proper since the 1S random overcall means that NS can never properly use their 1C opening and have zero knowledge of opps hand to compensate. They might as well play 1S=16+ and 1C=5s, <16 instead.

The 1S bid is not bridge.

Why is 1♠ not bridge and 1♣ is?

1♣ shows EVERY distribution, 16+HCP
1♠ shows EVERY distribution, 0-24HCP

What's the difference?

What about 1♦ openings with 0+♦? Thats "pretty much every distribution with 10-15HCP". Is this bridge?

There is, almost certainly, a clear difference. Those playing a big club open virtually every 16 point hand with 1C and virtually no 15 point hand with 1C. Of course there may be a little wiggle room for exceptionally good 15s or exceptionally bad 16s, or there may be some exceptional hands with a different treatment, but pretty much you can depend on 1C being 16+ and non-1club being 15-. Now if the 1S bidders are willing to agree to bid 1S over 1C, every time, with all 0 to 24 point hands then fine, then this argument does not apply. I don't play a big club, but I have encountered these "13 card" bids in other contexts and it has been my experience that, while the bid may be a number of different things, usually the pair has a pretty good idea of what the possibilities are and aren't. They just don't tell you.

[david_c]

SoTired, on Sep 3 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

I repeat: the 1S random overcall is not just illegal, I would consider it cheating.

Strong words. Certainly in the ACBL is it illegal, and therefore if you played this convention despite knowing that it is illegal, then that would be cheating.

On the other hand, there are many countries where the random 1♠ overcall is not illegal, and is therefore a legitimate tactic.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Sep 3 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

Mixed strategies are not the point

If 1♠ really shows 13 cards as they say (of course most don't believe that, but assume for the sake of the argument that it is at least approximatively true) while in fact they don't always overcall 1♠, then they are following a mixed strategy. Now my point is that while they might be able to disclose that mixed strategy (which hands are more likely to overcall 1♠) that would not help us much.

Quote

Your partner's final pass looks dubious to me btw.

Yes. I don't think it would occur to me to pass with that hand unless the 2♣ opener appeared to be shocked by his partner's pass. But my p is not a very strong bidder, sometimes she will pass just because she doesn't know what to do. There is also, of course, the possibility that I had radiated a sort of "please pass, p" signal. I hope that wasn't the case.

[hrothgar]

SoTired, on Sep 3 2007, 06:52 PM, said:

Then what does pass show? 1S becomes a forced psyche. Advancer will know from experience what hand types the 1S overcaller might have and could never explain it to the opps.

I repeat: the 1S random overcall is not just illegal, I would consider it cheating.

First and foremost, the laws of bridge don't say anything about what specific meaning can be assigned to any given bid. This power to relegate conventions is delegated to sponsoring organization. If you want to make any kind of definitive statement you need to specifically discussion which sponsoring organization you're talking you about. I think that you'll find that the regulations in North America differ substantially from those in Australia. Those used in Germany differ from both of the above.

I play a lot of strong club. Personally, I don't have any trouble if people what to play a "random" defense over it. However, I do think that said players need to be able to provide appropriate disclosure. (I also believe that it is possible to provide appropriate disclosure of these types of methods)

For anyone interested in a somewhat more serious discussion of these issues, you might want to look at the following

http://forums.bridge...topic=3155&st=0

[whereagles]

"1♠ = 13 cards" doesn't mean you're obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases you'll overcall just because you feel like it, without any specific requirement for it.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Sep 4 2007, 01:59 AM, said:

"1♠ = 13 cards" doesn't mean you're obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases you'll overcall just because you feel like it, without any specific requirement for it.

For what its worth, I consider this a perfect example of inappropriate disclosure.

If you can't provide qualitative and quantitative information about your methods, then you shouldn't be allowed to use them in serious competition.

[kenberg]

whereagles, on Sep 3 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

"1♠ = 13 cards" doesn't mean you're obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases you'll overcall just because you feel like it, without any specific requirement for it.

Yes. They do this on some hands and not others. It is not bid always, and it is not bid randomly, whatever they may say. They look at their hands first and decide on the basis of what they see in their hands. Their partners know, from experience, what their tendencies are. Opponents are told only that it shows 13 cards. Helene's post is a case in point. She was able to drag out of them that it (for them) tends to deny a five card major. That's hardly obvious from either the bid or the original 13 card explanation. It is likely it tends to deny a lot of other things also, but she never found out.

You could have a truly (pseudo)-random approach: Bid 1S always if you are holding the 3 of diamonds and never do it otherwise. Deterministic of course, but random in the sense that the bid would not depend on any important features of the hand. You could then honestly describe the bid as showing the 3 of diamonds and twelve other cards (for this to be honest, you must also never pass when holding the 3 of diamonds). But that is not what is done. 1S is being bid, or not bid, on the basis of all of the thirteen cards held, but how the choice is made is not explained to the opponents.

No one objects to people looking at their hand before choosing a call. The objection is that after choosing the call they proclaim that the content of their hand had nothing to do with the call, a claim that only the hopelessly naive take at face value. If the ACBL bans this bid, I congratulate them.

[jtfanclub]

whereagles, on Sep 3 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

"1♠ = 13 cards" doesn't mean you're obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases you'll overcall just because you feel like it, without any specific requirement for it.

Hey, that's true for EVERY bid I make!

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Sep 3 2007, 11:06 PM, said:

whereagles, on Sep 4 2007, 01:59 AM, said:

"1♠ = 13 cards" doesn't mean you're obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases you'll overcall just because you feel like it, without any specific requirement for it.

For what its worth, I consider this a perfect example of inappropriate disclosure.

If you can't provide qualitative and quantitative information about your methods, then you shouldn't be allowed to use them in serious competition.

Well, then change the abbreviated description of

"1♠ = 13 cards"

to

"1♠ = 13 cards; it doesn't mean pard is obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases he'll overcall just because he feels like it, without any specific requirement for doing it."

That would be a perfect description of the bid, and it's up to the authorities to decide whether this bid is legal or not.

[cherdano]

whereagles, on Sep 4 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

Well, then change the abbreviated description of

"1♠ = 13 cards"

to

"1♠ = 13 cards; it doesn't mean pard is obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases he'll overcall just because he feels like it, without any specific requirement for doing it."

That would be a perfect description of the bid, and it's up to the authorities to decide whether this bid is legal or not.

This is not appropriate disclosure, as you may well know on which kind of hands partner feels like doing so, while your opponents will not. [Assuming this isn't one of the first times the opportunity to overcall 1♠ came up.] Partnership experience is part of implicit agreements and must be disclosed.

Even you won't convince me that you are crazy enough to make this overcall equally likely regardless of your hand pattern, strength, etc.

[mycroft]

Well, there's a lot of discussion on Another Site about an opening that seems crazier on the surface than "make 'em play at the 2 level with their good hands", and they aren't crazy - and yes, the call is mandatory:

2C opening shows 0-5 HCP and a 4+card diamond, heart, or spade suit. It could have one or two 4+card side suits (including clubs).

Michael.

[Free]

Yes, I've played that too. The "Random 2♣" however is a BSC (opening between 2♣ and 3♠, unknown suit in case you're weak), which is a problem in most tourneys. Needless to say these work pretty well when you play them in the right vulnerability.

Because of the BSC we switched to Lorenzo two's (2M = 0-7HCP, 4+ card M) which work great as well (in MP that is, never played them in imps).

[helene_t]

Free, on Sep 5 2007, 02:18 PM, said:

Because of the BSC we switched to Lorenzo two's (2M = 0-7HCP, 4+ card M) which work great as well (in MP that is, never played them in imps).

Funny, I have heard the opposite, only play them nonvulnerable at IMPs.

[whereagles]

cherdano, on Sep 4 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

whereagles, on Sep 4 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

Well, then change the abbreviated description of

"1♠ = 13 cards"

to

"1♠ = 13 cards; it doesn't mean pard is obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases he'll overcall just because he feels like it, without any specific requirement for doing it."

That would be a perfect description of the bid, and it's up to the authorities to decide whether this bid is legal or not.

This is not appropriate disclosure, as you may well know on which kind of hands partner feels like doing so, while your opponents will not. [Assuming this isn't one of the first times the opportunity to overcall 1♠ came up.] Partnership experience is part of implicit agreements and must be disclosed.

Even you won't convince me that you are crazy enough to make this overcall equally likely regardless of your hand pattern, strength, etc.

Well, one usually does the overcall on a hand that is of the offensive type. A defensive one (like the one at the start of the thread) will usually pass.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Sep 4 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

"1♠ = 13 cards; it doesn't mean pard is obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases he'll overcall just because he feels like it, without any specific requirement for doing it."

That would be a perfect description of the bid, and it's up to the authorities to decide whether this bid is legal or not.

whereagles, on Sep 6 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

Well, one usually does the overcall on a hand that is of the offensive type. A defensive one (like the one at the start of the thread) will usually pass.

So your "perfect description" is not only incomplete, it is a lie?

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2007, 08:27 PM, said:

whereagles, on Sep 4 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

"1♠ = 13 cards; it doesn't mean pard is obliged to overcall on EVERY hand. Just that in some cases he'll overcall just because he feels like it, without any specific requirement for doing it."

That would be a perfect description of the bid, and it's up to the authorities to decide whether this bid is legal or not.

whereagles, on Sep 6 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

Well, one usually does the overcall on a hand that is of the offensive type. A defensive one (like the one at the start of the thread) will usually pass.

So your "perfect description" is not only incomplete, it is a lie?

No, it is not. To bid on offensive hands and pass on defensive ones is common sense and need not be stressed all of the time. The description I gave is perfectly correct and sufficient because that's exactly the agreement I have. If/when asked, one can disclose pard's style, just like one does when inquired about weak 2 styles.

There's nothing wrong about the destructive 1♠ bid and it's up to the authorities, not the players, to decide whether it's legal or not.