[jdonn]

whereagles, on Sep 6 2007, 07:35 PM, said:

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.

Why are the opponents supposed to assume that someone who plays such a ridiculous bid would have common sense? And one person's common sense is not always so common to other people. "When I feel like it" means the choice is based upon mood, not something to do with the hand. So if the choice is based on the offensive nature of the hand, the explanation is not true.

How can you say they have to ask AGAIN to ascertain partner's style? The entire meaning of the bid is partner's style! It's the exact same type of answer as if I say to you "can you answer the phone" and you say "yes I can" but don't do it unless I follow with "would you please do it??"

BTW I just remembered, I wish I could find it (anyone?) but there is a fairly old appeal in one of the casebooks on the ACBL website where someone opened 1♠ in 3rd seat, the opponents asked and were told it could be a short suit, they asked when, and were told "when I feel like it". This ended up not only losing that side the appeal (I forget the exact bridge issue involved), but earned them a lambasting from every casebook commentator. I realize that is not an exact quote of what you said your explanation would be, and is in fact quite ruder, but it still seems worth mentioning.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Sep 7 2007, 06:49 AM, said:

1. Why are the opponents supposed to assume that someone who plays such a ridiculous bid would have common sense?

2. And one person's common sense is not always so common to other people. "When I feel like it" means the choice is based upon mood, not something to do with the hand.

3. How can you say they have to ask AGAIN to ascertain partner's style?

4. BTW I just remembered, I wish I could find it (anyone?) but there is a fairly old appeal in one of the casebooks on the ACBL website where someone opened 1♠ in 3rd seat, the opponents asked and were told it could be a short suit, they asked when, and were told "when I feel like it". This ended up not only losing that side the appeal

1. Maybe because I once saw Jeff Meckstroth making one such overcall? (Which, incidently, is where I got the inspiration to custom-make my own version of the convention..) Surely you must agree he has common sense, no?

Oh, in case you're interested, he had something like

Kxx
xx
Axxxx
xxx

for his (1♣) 1♠ overcall.

2. Don't be hypocrate. We all know mood influences our bidding choices. You don't (in fact CAN'T) always make the technical bid.

3. When people ask you about your 1NT range, do you always say something like..? "15-17 balanced or semi-balanced, may have a good 14 or bad 18, 5M 6m 54 shapes possible, but not if 54 in majors. With 5M4m 1NT may or may not be opened, depending on the doubletons strength. 4441 shape also possible but rare and only if no convenient rebid after opening 1m. Player A is more prone to open with 5M4m, player B less... etc, etc, etc..."

Of course not. At most you say "15-17, eventually a good 14, 5M 6m possible". It is only later on that you disclose style issues, if asked.

4. As I said, if after talking to Director my agreements on what 1♠ means are deemed illegal, I won't play it. Otherwise I will... if I feel like it, lol.

[helene_t]

Whereagles, the problem is the explanation "if he feels like bidding 1♠". This is not very helpful to opps. If the real strategy is to bid 1♠ completely at random, you must say so. If the strategy is to bid 1♠ on any hand that could have made a reasonably safe overcall at the 2-level (whether one-suited or 2-suited) but no strong preference for a lead (since then you would have overcalled naturally at the 2-level for the lead), then say so. If the strategy is optionally to overcall 1♠ with any hand but more likely with balanced or 1-suited hands and less likely with strong (13+) hands, then say so. Etc.

[whereagles]

Hum.. well, it could be that the problem is we might be giving "feels like bidding 1♠" a different interpretation.

To me this doesn't mean to overcall on random hands, but rather that overcaller feels it's right to act on his actual hand, for some technical reason*, although he's not FORCED to do it.

*e.g. a long broken suit, a singleton in a major, offensive 2/3-suited hand that doesn't fit another systemic bid, etc.

For instance, suppose I play dbl, 1♦, 1♥ as some two-suited hand, so that I don't have a natural 1♦ bid available. I might decide to overcall the strong club on Meckstroth's hand

Kxx
xx
Axxxx
xxx

but, if I feel this is too risky, I can simply pass.

[helene_t]

Whether it is risky or not with a particular hand depends on your follow-up agreements. For example, if a redouble by overcaller shows either of two or three specific distributions, it is relatively safe to overcall 1♠ with either of those. On the other hand if your escape mechanism does not destinguish between 4/5 and 5/4 minors, it is more risky, and if you cannot show a minor two-suit at all but can only back out into your 5-card or make some omnibus SOS redouble, it is even more risky.

Without knowing those things, I cannot judge which hands you are most likely to have when you overcall 1♠.

[mycroft]

Whereagles, you are going to think things like "I play dbl, 1♦, 1♥ as some two-suited hand, so that I don't have a natural 1♦ bid available." when making your choice of overcalling 1S - but you don't feel you have any responsibility to the opponents to let them in on the joke?

If I described my Raptor 1NT overcall as "random two-suiter", without disclosing the negative inferences, you'd get on my case, and that's over a natural opening.

Your system influences what is "sense" in common sense. If I'm playing EHAA, it's not just sensible, but a good idea to pass a balanced 13 in third seat - and it's an auto-pass in fourth. Playing Standard, that is a bad idea. Playing Roth-Stone, it's suicidal. Without the *relevant* parts of your system, I can't exercise my common sense.

Here's another example that, four years later, still rankles:
1C!-1D!
1NT-2C
2D-2H
AP.

I'm sure we all can work out the auction after 1C was described as Precision, but my partner couldn't because he has never played a strong club, and at the time hadn't really played more than once or twice against it. Here's the part that rankles: 1D was described as "waiting". And yeah, it wasn't completely negative - I'm sure they had some strong hand in there, but this auction showed a bust 45xx, and they knew it, but all they were willing to say about dummy's hand was "waiting". Needless to say, partner got off to the wrong lead...I couldn't ask the "pro question", because that isn't fair, either.

When I talked to the directors about it afterward, they said "we know them, they have a habit of describing as little as possible and obscurely. It's time to rattle their cages again, I guess." I assume they did - I've never seen them since. Not surprising as they live 600 miles away.

Michael.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Sep 7 2007, 08:45 AM, said:

2. Don't be hypocrate. We all know mood influences our bidding choices. You don't (in fact CAN'T) always make the technical bid.

The explanation you give sounds like that is the ONLY thing influencing that bidding choice, when in fact it's not. That is the problem. Otherwise "when I feel like it" would be a valid answer about any bid at all.

Quote

3. When people ask you about your 1NT range, do you always say something like..? "15-17 balanced or semi-balanced, may have a good 14 or bad 18, 5M 6m 54 shapes possible, but not if 54 in majors. With 5M4m 1NT may or may not be opened, depending on the doubletons strength. 4441 shape also possible but rare and only if no convenient rebid after opening 1m. Player A is more prone to open with 5M4m, player B less... etc, etc, etc..."

Of course not. At most you say "15-17, eventually a good 14, 5M 6m possible". It is only later on that you disclose style issues, if asked.

Because you have already given the information that tends to be relevent! They have to ask for more like 1 time out of 20. After your explanation they have to ask for more 100% of the time, you have told them nothing useful. How can you even make that comparison with a straight face?

BTW your Meckstroth example he was PSYCHING. That has nothing to do with anything.

I'm done with this, if this makes no sense to you then good luck to you.

[whereagles]

Ok. Good bye then. You weren't making much sense anyway.

Incidently, Meckstroth wasn't psyching. That hand came on a book chapter with the story as I told it.

[whereagles]

helene and mycroft: the "disclose as little and as obscurely as possible" strategy is very common where I live. I don't like it and I don't practice it. However, I can't disclose all negative inferences of a bid if that would take me 2+ mins to do. It's just not practical.

[Free]

whereagles, on Sep 8 2007, 12:47 AM, said:

helene and mycroft: the "disclose as little and as obscurely as possible" strategy is very common where I live. I don't like it and I don't practice it. However, I can't disclose all negative inferences of a bid if that would take me 2+ mins to do. It's just not practical.

No, lol, instead you describe nothing and waste even more time on opps asking you all sorts of questions, calling the TD for an insufficient explanation,...

People like you might make authorities ban this method if you keep explaining it like this. Come on, is it really that hard to give your opps a decent explanation? I can't believe that if you'd put all your 1♠ hands together, that there isn't any consistency in them.

I play the 1♠ overcall as any hand with 0-3♠. What I know from experience is that we usually have a poor singlesuiter, or at least 3+ cards in ♣, ♦ and ♥. This is easily explained...

[whereagles]

Look.. whatever. I gave my definition of 1♠ above, which is 100% correct and consistent with my actual agreement, and I don't really CARE what you think of it.

If authorities let me play it as I defined it, fine. Otherwise I won't play it. It is as simple as that. What is also very simple is I won't stop playing it just because you (and some others) disagree with the way I play it.

[mycroft]

Whereagles, one more try, then I'll stop.

"If authorities let me play it as I defined it, fine. Otherwise I won't play it."

In response, "If you play it as you define it, fine. Otherwise, you have a concealed partnership understanding and the authorities will eventually punish you for it." What's worse, is that they may decide to avoid the problem by banning the method, so that those who do fully disclose still can't play it.

As I said, the one time I played against it - illegal or no - the 1S bidder was a Junior Internationalist, his partner to become one (and an NABC+ champion). They said "interested in playing somewhere at the 2 level." When asked for a description of the rest of their system, they said "well, 2S would be interested in playing somewhere at the 3 level." They wanted to play a screw-em-up system, fine by us (we also allowed a Polish pair to play Wilkosz at GCC, calling the TD afterward simply to have it pointed out that it wasn't legal normally, before they did it against a pair that blew up at them). But I believed them that they had told us their complete agreement, including inferences.

The problem is that there are a lot of players - and I don't include you in this, although not wanting to "explain common sense" seems to imply it - that want to play a difficult to defend against convention, and then make it more difficult to defend against by explaining as little as they can get away with (see my earlier response with 1C Precision - 1D "Waiting"). The former, when legal, is legal - the latter is not. People who play unfamiliar or difficult-to-defend-against and unfamiliar conventions have an extra responsibility to fully disclose their inferences, as their "common sense" isn't common - in fact, the lack of full explanations, and not the inherent difficulty of the convention, was in my reading of the stories what got HUM and BSC rules invented.

And as a lover of weird tech, it annoys me that the actions of those who don't disclose fully make it hard to impossible for me to play the weird tech. So I rail on it.

Michael.
(side note, the auction referenced above continued: 1C!-1S!-2S-p; 3S-p-4S. "What was 2S?" they asked before the lead. I can still remember my exact words: "I have no idea. We have no agreement over 1S showing 13 cards." Because my partner was playing it, 4S made an overtrick for a clear top.)

[whereagles]

Michael, I don't have any concealed agreement. It's really a random overcall, which is usually done with a hand which has some sort of 'excuse' to bid, whatever that excuse may be.

I do have follow-up agreements that allow overcaller to clear up what kind of stuff he actually butt-in with. Those agreements cover every kind of hand I could think of, from 4333s to 1/2/3-suiters, so overcaller can really have whatever he wants.

So, if you're telling me I should disclose inferences (which I agree one should), the answer is there's really no inference to make because overcaller can bid it on a 4333 or a 5440 or a 6322 or something els... I can however say something like "could be anything from a 4333 to a 6322 with a broken suit. If the suit were any good, pard would have overcalled at the 2 level in that suit". Now, instead of 6322 I could put up any other distribution and infer something from it, but it would take like 5 mins to fully describe the bid. You sure that's what's indended?

The 1♠ bid is actually very easy to defend. See for instance the competitive bidding appendix of Rigal's precision book.

[mycroft]

That's good - much better than "13 cards". "could be any hand - with a good suit we would overcall it at the 2 level". Now I can work with it, and I'm almost as much in the game as your partner.

"So, what hands do you pass on? What does a 1-level overcall mean?"

You don't have to go for two minutes, unless that really is your agreement. And you don't have to "have a defined meaning" - I don't mind playing against random overcalls provided I have the same chance of working it out as your partner does. After all, the main reason I play Precision is so that I can bid 1S-p-4S.

The whole argument is that I don't then explain 4S as "Spade support, wants to play 4S"; I say "To play. He either has a Standard preemptive raise, or he has a minimum game force that sees no chance of slam opposite my limited opener." (in fact, I usually add that its lower end is a little stronger than what they would expect for a "minimum game force", as we open crappy 11s and good 10s).

Do you see the difference? The fact that the bid's hard to defend against because it's so variable is part of the game. The fact that the bid's harder to defend against because we don't have the information your partner does to judge what to do, isn't.

I don't say this about you, because I truly think you are trying to be open; but I am glad I don't have to face this 13-card 1S overcall in the ACBL, because many people who do play it *are* trying to get the extra advantage of "forgetting" the inferences.

Michael.

[whereagles]

I know exactly what you mean. I'm directing a game at the local club and frequently have to deal with some guys who open a weak 2♥ at 'red' and say "could be an opening". To which opps wonder what the heck does he mean by that (which actually is "given the vulnerability, it's not really 6-11 but more into the 9-13 region"). Further questions are, of course, answered evasively. I had to tell off those guys a couple of times.

As to "So, what hands do you pass on? What does a 1-level overcall mean?", the answer would be:

1. "We pass on any 16+ hand or any weaker hand unsuitable for an overcall or a 1♠ bid. Unsuitable for 1♠ means a defensive hand that prefers to defend opps contract instead of butting-in; will usually be balanced or a broken 1/2-suiter. That same hand with an offensive character could have bid 1♠."

2. "A 1-lev overcall would be [insert whatever I agreed with this specific pard]"

[mycroft]

Great! I have no problem with this - and neither would, I believe, most strong clubbers. In fact, I have a defence to *that* "random 1S" call already in my arsenal.

You can see the difference, I hope, between that and "1S is totally random." Please note that as I said the last time, I and all the others believe that most people who are playing "random 1S" actually are playing something closer to what you describe: "automatic 1S, but we could pass with a defensive-oriented or very good hand, we'd bid 2x with a solid-ish suit, ...", and if they're not deliberately adding to the "randomness" of 1S by trying to get away with the least description they can, at least aren't actively trying to describe their *real* agreement. That's why we gripe about it, because that's illegal, and unethical if they're deliberately shading their replies.

And while, as I said, I am firmly convinced that you aren't trying one on, look how long it took to drag your real agreement out. Now think about what it's like at the table with opponents who actually are trying not to provide full disclosure.

Thanks for putting up with the conversation, by the way; I realize it was aggressive at times.

Michael.

[whereagles]

Well, some people (not you, ofc) were more interested in bashing stuff than in a serious discussion. But hey, as I say: the internet without flames is like a jungle without bananas.. it's not funny