[the hog]

bluecalm, on Apr 28 2010, 12:48 AM, said:

I think using such defense is just cheating.
It's impossible for humans to assume "unkknown range" if they played with each other for some time and they will automatically make assumptions about partners hands.
Opponents have right to know those assumptions too. This is why they should specify the range they play.

No this comment is plain silly as well as provocative. Provided there is high variance, there is nothing that is "cheating: about such methods. Whether these methos are effective and "good bridge" is another story.

[Free]

jjbrr, on Apr 27 2010, 04:30 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 27 2010, 09:22 AM, said:

To the best of my knowledge, any defense against a strong, forcing and artificial 1♣ opening is permitted.

Except destructive methods iirc, eg 1♠ showing that you counted your cards and indeed have 13.

Don't know if this is an ACBL rule.

According to WBF rules you're not allowed to play a method where you're obligated to be 1♠ just because opps open a strong 1♣. This has nothing to do with being destructive, it's about obligation. For example, you are allowed to play 1♠ as any hand with 0-3♠.

[glen]

aguahombre, on Apr 28 2010, 12:53 AM, said:

I think the wording refers to 4 4 3 2 hands, and the choice of minor opening....not that ridiculous example.

There are a whole stack of people who say "could be short" and it means far more than just the 4=4=3=2 case. If you take the 'ridiculous example" and flip the minor suits (i.e. making it a 4=4=0=5), there are pairs that open 1♦ as 11-15, "could be short". Some though are nice to say "could be short as zero", but then it takes several questions to find out the hand types that are in or not in 1♦. Likewise questions are necessary over a "could be short" 1♣ as methods vary.

[hrothgar]

PrecisionL, on Apr 28 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

dake50, on Apr 27 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

I'm calling bullshit...

There was a discussion about just this topic a few monthes back which (essentially) concluded that players in ACBL-land can use whatever methods they want over a short club.

As I recall, Jan Martel made a comment concurring with this...

[rbforster]

PrecisionL, on Apr 27 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

dake50, on Apr 27 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

Incorrect. A 1♣ opener that does not promise 3+ clubs is conventional, as natural minor openings are clearly spelled out to require 3+ cards on the GCC. As such, if you open some weak NT hands 1♣, including those with only 2 clubs (like 4=4=3=2), your 1♣ is conventional. Per GCC, any defense is allowed over an opponent's conventional call.

Time to bust out your 2♥ multi and 2♦ Wilcosz weak jump overcalls...

[akhare]

Rob F, on Apr 28 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

PrecisionL, on Apr 27 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

dake50, on Apr 27 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

Incorrect. A 1♣ opener that does not promise 3+ clubs is conventional, as natural minor openings are clearly spelled out to require 3+ cards on the GCC. As such, if you open some weak NT hands 1♣, including those with only 2 clubs (like 4=4=3=2), your 1♣ is conventional. Per GCC, any defense is allowed over an opponent's conventional call.

Time to bust out your 2♥ multi and 2♦ Wilcosz weak jump overcalls...

+1 with RobF and hrothgar...

[rwbarton]

Rob F, on Apr 28 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

PrecisionL, on Apr 27 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

dake50, on Apr 27 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

Incorrect. A 1♣ opener that does not promise 3+ clubs is conventional, as natural minor openings are clearly spelled out to require 3+ cards on the GCC. As such, if you open some weak NT hands 1♣, including those with only 2 clubs (like 4=4=3=2), your 1♣ is conventional. Per GCC, any defense is allowed over an opponent's conventional call.

Time to bust out your 2♥ multi and 2♦ Wilcosz weak jump overcalls...

Supposing I decide to try this out, how should I play a 2♠ overcall?

[hrothgar]

rwbarton, on Apr 28 2010, 09:51 PM, said:

Rob F, on Apr 28 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

PrecisionL, on Apr 27 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

dake50, on Apr 27 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

Incorrect. A 1♣ opener that does not promise 3+ clubs is conventional, as natural minor openings are clearly spelled out to require 3+ cards on the GCC. As such, if you open some weak NT hands 1♣, including those with only 2 clubs (like 4=4=3=2), your 1♣ is conventional. Per GCC, any defense is allowed over an opponent's conventional call.

Time to bust out your 2♥ multi and 2♦ Wilcosz weak jump overcalls...

Supposing I decide to try this out, how should I play a 2♠ overcall?

4 spades and 5+ card minor

[steve2005]

spotlight7, on Apr 26 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

Hi:

My understanding is that any defense to a forcing 1C* is allowed in ACBLevents.

I concur ACBL any defence to a strong club openings and also any artificial doesnt have to be strong, for example short clubs

I personally favour Truscott over 1C & 2C, they have no point count specified, it assumed your going against a strong hand and will need a fit to compete
Your suits are known to partner so he can jusdge a raise if we have a fit

Holding......Over 1C.....Over 1C-Pass-1D
C&D.........2C.............2C
D&H..........1D.............2D
H&S..........1H.............1H
S&C..........1S.............1S
C&H..........Double.......1NT
D&S.........1NT............Double
C only.......3C.............3C
D only......2D..............3D
H only.......2H.............2H
S only.......2S.............2S

Over 2C bid one level higher

[bluecalm]

Quote

It's a legitimate style to decide that we will not look for game on power after the opponents open a strong 1♣, and that our one-level overcalls therefore just show shape and could have an extremely wide point range.

I have nothing against say 0-37hcp range but saying "unknown" is against the rules of full disclosure imo.

Quote

No this comment is plain silly as well as provocative. Provided there is high variance, there is nothing that is "cheating: about such methods. Whether these methos are effective and "good bridge" is another story.

Why ?
How would you feel if opponents bid to game after such "unknown range" and said after the hand : "well I KNEW you got to have something for vulnerable overall, guessed it's 6-4 too !". Few hands later they stopped in partscore depiste responder having 16hcp. "I knew you don't have much this time !".
If someone wants to play 0-30hcp range that's ok with me but I want to be sure they will bid with that exact assumption and not with some others which I don't know about.

[the hog]

bluecalm, on May 3 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

snipped

Quote

No this comment is plain silly as well as provocative. Provided there is high variance, there is nothing that is "cheating: about such methods. Whether these methos are effective and "good bridge" is another story.

Why ?
How would you feel if opponents bid to game after such "unknown range" and said after the hand : "well I KNEW you got to have something for vulnerable overall, guessed it's 6-4 too !". Few hands later they stopped in partscore depiste responder having 16hcp. "I knew you don't have much this time !".
If someone wants to play 0-30hcp range that's ok with me but I want to be sure they will bid with that exact assumption and not with some others which I don't know about.

Read my comment. I said high variance.
When it used to be legal, my then partner and i played a rndom 1S overcall over a strong C. It was truly random, so how i that cheating?

[aguahombre]

Actually, your random 1S was not truly random, unless every time they opened 1C you bid 1S.

You had a structure for other overcalls or for a double.
You sometimes passed.

Partner was in a far better position to know what kind of hand would overcall 1S than the opponents were. Hence, I can see why the ruling body and/or opponents might object. No, it is not cheating. But it is prone to undisclosed understandings, and seems to have only obstructive intent. And yes, in the 60's we experimented with the random 1S overcall also. Our undisclosed agreement was that partner would only bid with a long suit or real 2-suiter himself, and that the 1S bid was to be totally ignored.

But we found that we still had information from the failure to make a different systemic bid, which was helpful to us, but impossible for the opponents to work out. We abandoned the idea before the ruling body starting coming down on it.

[gwnn]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=20578

but one night we tried

pass, 1♦, 1♥=forbidden
1♠=any hand with no 6 card suit or 55 (i think)
1N=55
higher=6 card suit

it worked fine as our opps got annoyed.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on May 3 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

Actually, your random 1S was not truly random, unless every time they opened 1C you bid 1S.

I think that you need to review the definition of both "random" and "deterministic"

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on May 3 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

aguahombre, on May 3 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

Actually, your random 1S was not truly random, unless every time they opened 1C you bid 1S.

I think that you need to review the definition of both "random" and "deterministic"

No, actually the person who describes 1S as random should do that, but whatever the term you like, 1S has boundaries which are undisclosed to the opponents. And that was my point. What was yours?

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on May 3 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 3 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

aguahombre, on May 3 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

Actually, your random 1S was not truly random, unless every time they opened 1C you bid 1S.

I think that you need to review the definition of both "random" and "deterministic"

No, actually the person who describes 1S as random should do that, but whatever the term you like, 1S has boundaries which are undisclosed to the opponents. And that was my point. What was yours?

My point is that if you take a deterministic action, you shouldn't describe your methods as "random".

Compare and contrast the following three structures

Structure 1

Each and every time that LHO opens a strong club, I will overcall 1♠ regardless of hand type.

This is deterministic. It is in no way, shape or form "random"

Structure 2

Each and every time that LHO opens a strong club, regardless of hand type, I will flip a coin. If the coin comes up heads, I will bid 1♠. If the coin comes up tails, I will make a bid according to some specified rules set.

This strategy includes a random component

Structure 3

Each and every time that LHO opens a strong club, I start by looking at my hand. I determine what class of hands that I hold (preemptive with a long major, constructive 2 suited hand, what have you). I then apply the appropriate rule set for this hand which may or may not include a random component. (It's possible that, with a given hand type, I might randomly choose between a set of bids).

This strategy also includes a random component.

Simply put, I found it incredibly amusing that your definition of a random 1♠ overcall was tautologically nonrandom...

[aguahombre]

Hence, my post that his random 1S overcall was not random. But, thanks for the enlightenment. Perhaps he should alert, and explain that it is deterministic and has several negative inferences too numerous to disclose. That would be much more helpful.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on May 3 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

Hence, my post that his random 1S overcall was not random. But, thanks for the enlightenment. Perhaps he should alert, and explain that it is deterministic and has several negative inferences too numerous to disclose. That would be much more helpful.

Is English your second language? (Because I still don't think you're on firm ground regarding the definition of random)

I don't recall The Hog making any claims about the nature of his 1♠ overcall, other than that it was truly "random".

I would be hesitant about making any statements about what constituted appropriate disclosure without a much more precise description.

[awm]

It makes sense to bar "random" agreements.

The issue is that agreements must be disclosed. There needs to be some mechanism for determining whether a pair's stated agreements match the manner in which they actually bid. When the stated agreements are deterministic (i.e. this bid shows a particular hand type) it's relatively easy to be on the lookout for times when the bid was made without the required hand type (or when another bid was made when the required hand type was held) and classify these as psychs. We can then look at partner's bids and see if allowances were made. Note that this process is already fairly difficult and requires a fairly substantial record of hands (and some committee deliberation) before anything can be done.

By their nature, agreements to bid "randomly" are much harder to police. While in principle an agreement like the one Hrothgar mentions (we flip a coin, if it's heads we automatically bid 1♠ over 1♣, otherwise we do something else) seems like it should be okay, the problem is that it's very hard to tell whether a pair is actually following that agreement. For example, maybe they flipped coins before the session (together, without telling opponents) and used that as a seed for a "random number generator." This process is such that it will be very difficult to distinguish their actions from being truly random, yet in fact they will always be on the same page as to what their style dictates on a particular hand. Perhaps more likely is that they look at their hands before bidding and (through some undisclosed method) judge how likely the 1♠ bid is to be effective versus making their other normal call. It would not be hard to imagine for example that 1♠ bids on balanced zero-counts are much more common at NV than at V even though the supposed agreement is "we flip a coin." Any attempt to police this type of undisclosed agreement will require a very large number of hand records (unlikely to exist) combined with very thorough statistical analysis (costly and unlikely to be performed). So it makes sense as a stopgap to just ban "random bids."

If randomness is really desired, why not have an agreement like "1♠ shows a hand which contains more 2s than 3s" where it's easy to prove by examining a few hands that the agreement is being followed, while still being as tough to cope with for the opposition as a truly random agreement (well, actually this is random since the dealing of the cards is random, but it lacks randomness independent from the hands dealt at the table).

[Vampyr]

awm, on May 3 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

If randomness is really desired, why not have an agreement like "1♠ shows a hand which contains more 2s than 3s" where it's easy to prove by examining a few hands that the agreement is being followed, while still being as tough to cope with for the opposition as a truly random agreement (well, actually this is random since the dealing of the cards is random, but it lacks randomness independent from the hands dealt at the table).

I had assumed that a method such as this was used to determine whether 1♠ was opened. Since the hand may not contain any 2s or 3s, some method such as adding together the two lowest red cards would be more effective...

But anyway, I would also assume that if there are hands that are not subjected to the "randomness" test, then they would be disclosed when an explanation of the 1♠ bid is explained.

My regular partner and I once devised a method where all of the steps from pass through 1NT were based on truly irrelevant spot-card holdings. We soon decided that it was not that effective!

We are now experimenting with methods where any constructive hand starts with Pass (only at pairs!). The problem is that where we live, fewer than one pair in ten plays a strong club, so we do not have the opportunity to test these methods.