[the hog]

glen, on 2013-October-21, 04:35, said:

Let's start with board 6.

Open:
Levin, Fantoni: 1♣-Pass
Narkiewicz: 1♣-2♥

Seniors:
Hayden, Elinescu: 1♣-Pass
Lasocki: 1♦-2♥
Poizat: 1♠-Pass

VC:
Zhang, Pasman, Eythorsdot: 1♣-Pass
F. Brown: 1♦-Pass

It would be best if you re-rephrase at this point before we continue

Why should I rephrase? To take action on these hands is perfectly normal. Perhaps if you are related to Caspar Milquetoast or your partner is, you may wish to pass.The fact that some players pass here is meaningless except to suggest that they are conservative.To post these hands and intimate that taking some action on them is unusual is totally silly.

[barmar]

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player. The reason this game is so interesting, even at expert levels, is that there are many options and styles. Very few actions are black-and-white, where you can state thst someone who does not not take them is a poor player.

[the hog]

barmar, on 2013-October-21, 18:15, said:

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player. The reason this game is so interesting, even at expert levels, is that there are many options and styles. Very few actions are black-and-white, where you can state thst someone who does not not take them is a poor player.

Correct, Barry. That is why I suggested a course in Clear Thinking where one learns to avoid such elementary errors in logic. Apparently one poster took umbrage at that suggestion.

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2013-October-21, 18:15, said:

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player.

You know, maybe you should reread what he wrote before taking sides for one of the most inflammatory regular posters.

the hog, on 2013-October-20, 18:28, said:

All of these apart from the third, which is a wjo in my book, are perfectly normal overcalls that would be made by any decent player. I canot even believe that they are mentioned in a thread such as this.

Maybe "any decent player" means something different for you and the hog, but for anyone I know it means "every decent player".

[glen]

barmar, on 2013-October-21, 18:15, said:

Some people seem to be making a falacious conclusion. "Decent players have done X" does not imply that someone who does not do X is not a decent player. The reason this game is so interesting, even at expert levels, is that there are many options and styles. Very few actions are black-and-white, where you can state thst someone who does not not take them is a poor player.

There is a clear difference between "Decent players have done X" and "Decent players would have done X" and to do otherwise makes one or their partner related to Caspar Milquetoast. The latter does not result in a fallacious conclusion, as any course of logic would teach. Suggesting that Fantoni and Levin are conservative is totally silly. Suggesting that when 1 person out of 12 is the only person to take a specific action is not at least worth some study is totally silly.

[the hog]

glen, on 2013-October-21, 18:47, said:

There is a clear difference between "Decent players have done X" and "Decent players would have done X" and to do otherwise makes one or their partner related to Caspar Milquetoast. The latter does not result in a fallacious conclusion, as any course of logic would teach. Suggesting that Fantoni and Levin are conservative is totally silly. Suggesting that when 1 person out of 12 is the only person to take a specific action is not at least worth some study is totally silly.

As you have nothing of interest to add, I am placing you in the same category as the numeric one and putting you on ignore.

[glen]

the hog, on 2013-October-21, 21:15, said:

I am ... putting you on ignore.

Sincerely, thank you!

[GreenMan]

the hog, on 2013-October-21, 21:15, said:

As you have nothing of interest to add, I am placing you in the same category as the numeric one and putting you on ignore.

And making a show of it, too. That'll teach him!

[johnu]

mike777, on 2013-October-20, 03:26, said:

fwiw I often find I lose hands when partner makes a simple overcall on shape rather than power.

I tend to x too much.


=should I just tend to x much much less?

Either double less or play with partner who has more for a simple overcall.

[glen]

For those six world championship hands, here are the complete results available:

Board 1

Unfav vul, 1♥-1♠ overcall with ♠KQJ65 ♥74 ♦J76 ♣T85
Nunes board 18, 4th final session world championship

Open:
Bathurst: 1♥-1♠
Buras, Madala: 1♥-Pass

TNOT:
Huang, Seamon: 1♥-1♠
Jansma, Yang: 1♥-Pass

Seniors:
Bates, Romanski, VanHoutte, Wenning: 1♥-Pass

VC:
Michielsen: 1♥-1♠
Liu, Meyers, Smith: 1♥-Pass

Board 2

All white, 1♦-2♣ overcall with ♠6 ♥Q93 ♦Q2 ♣KJT8654
Fantoni board 24, 4th final session world championship

Open:
Bocchi, Narkiewicz: 1♦-3♣
Dwyer: Pass-4♣

TNOT:
Dai, Pszczola: 1♦-3♣
Paulissen: 1NT-3♣
Chen: 1♣-3♣

Seniors:
Grenthe: 1♦-2♣
Hayden: 1♦-3♣
Kowalski: 1♦-Pass
Marsal: 1NT-3♣

VC:
Yan: 1♦-3♣
Wortel: 1NT-3♣
Brock: 1♦-Pass
Zur-Campanile: Pass-Pass

Board 3

Fav vul, 1♣-1♦ overcall with ♠874 ♥72 ♦AQ98743 ♣5
Bocchi board 19, 2nd quarterfinal session world championship
1♣ was artificial, strong

Open:
Kranyak, Wang: 1♠-4♦
Robson: 1♠-1NT (comic)
Zimmermann: 1♠-3♦
Smith: 1♣-4♦

Seniors:
Coyle, Grenthe: 1♣-3♦
Hayden, Janssens: 1♠-4♦

VC:
Audt, Wortel: 1♠-3♦

Board 4

Both vul, 1♠-2♥ overcall with ♠K73 ♥KQ753 ♦AT85 ♣2
Lauria board 13, 1st semifinal session world championship

Open:
Balicki, Fantoni, Wolpert: 1♠-2♥

Seniors:
Leenhardt, Wold: 1♠-2♥
Kratz: 1♠-Pass
Klukowski: 1NT-Pass

VC:
Brown, Wortel: 1♠-Pass

Board 5

Unfav vul, 1♣-1♠ overcall with ♠KJT864 ♥T954 ♦3 ♣KJ
Duboin board 19, 2nd semifinal session world championship

Open:
Helgemo: 1♦-1♠
Zmudzinski: 1NT-2♦ (one major)
Kranyak: 1NT-2♥ (♠s)

Seniors:
Lasocki: 1♦-1♠
Passell, Wenning: Pass-2♠
Grenthe: 1NT-2♥ (♠s)

VC:
Eythorsdottir: 1♣-1♠
Dhondy: 1♦-2♠
Liu: Pass-2♠
Van Zwol: Pass-2♦ (Multi)

Board 6

All white, 1♣-1♥ overcall with ♠T74 ♥AT7532 ♦96 ♣74
Sementa board 8, 3rd semifinal session world championship

Open:
Levin, Fantoni: 1♣-Pass
Narkiewicz: 1♣-2♥

Seniors:
Hayden, Elinescu: 1♣-Pass
Lasocki: 1♦-2♥
Poizat: 1♠-Pass

VC:
Zhang, Pasman, Eythorsdottir: 1♣-Pass
F. Brown: 1♦-Pass

[cherdano]

glen, on 2013-October-22, 16:45, said:

Board 3

Fav vul, 1♣-1♦ overcall with ♠874 ♥72 ♦AQ98743 ♣5
Bocchi board 19, 2nd quarterfinal session world championship
1♣ was artificial, strong

Open:
Kranyak, Wang: 1♠-4♦
Robson: 1♠-1NT (comic)
Zimmermann: 1♠-3♦
Smith: 1♣-4♦

Seniors:
Coyle, Grenthe: 1♣-3♦
Hayden, Janssens: 1♠-4♦

VC:
Audt, Wortel: 1♠-3♦

Under these conditions (fav over strong club) I find the 1♦ overcall pretty amazing.
Do they play all of 2/3/4♦ as artificial?

[glen]

cherdano, on 2013-October-22, 17:14, said:

Under these conditions (fav over strong club) I find the 1♦ overcall pretty amazing.
Do they play all of 2/3/4♦ as artificial?

Their cc:

madala-bocchi.pdf

"System On", and not clear what that is

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2013-October-22, 17:14, said:

Do they play all of 2/3/4♦ as artificial?

I checked the CC at ecats - with Duboin he played canape overcalls. With Madala the CC says nothing more than "System On". Whatever else that means it is surely not an artificial 3/4♦.